Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Teacher Retirement

Phil Willis: How many secondary school teachers with a qualification in chemistry or physics will be eligible for retirement over the next 10 years.

Jim Knight: In 2005, 26 per cent. of teachers with a physics degree and 22 per cent. with a chemistry degree were aged 50 or over and would therefore be expected to retire in the next 10 to15 years. There is no fixed retirement age for teachers but the normal pension age for existing teachers is 60, rising to 65 for ordinary recruits from January 2007. Actuarially reduced pension benefits are also available to members of the scheme from age 55.

Phil Willis: May I first welcome the Secretary of State and his new ministerial team and wish them well? I genuinely mean that.
	Yesterday, the Education and Inspections Bill went through the House promising that more children at key stages 3 and 4 could have access to single subject physics and chemistry. Also, the Chancellor said that 3,000 extra science teachers—mostly of physics and chemistry—would be recruited by 2014. Yet only one in four science teachers has a qualification in physics, only one in five has a qualification in chemistry and the Government have missed every science teacher recruitment target since 1997. What plans has the Minister to ensure that, by 2014, we have a supply of teachers to satisfy the demands of our schools and British business?

Jim Knight: We are taking significant steps to recruit and retain more science teachers. The targets are challenging but numbers have already increased by30 per cent. between 1997 and 2004-05—the last year for which figures are available. As a result of the Chancellor's Budget statement, we are increasing the value of the teacher training bursary for science graduates, training new science specialist high level teaching assistants, continuing the drive to recruit graduates into teaching via employment-based routes, exploring current pay incentives and flexibilities—there is a long list, but I shall not detain the House by continuing to read it out. We take the matter very seriously.

Brian Iddon: It is not simply a matter of good science teachers in the classroom, but of good technical back-up. Will my hon. Friend examine the training of technicians and technical assistants who help teachers in the laboratory and elsewhere in school? There are some problems with supply.

Jim Knight: As ever, my hon. Friend follows these matters carefully. He is right to highlight the important role that technicians play. The support staff in our schools perform a valuable role but, all too often, we focus only on teaching assistants. We should applaud the work and contribution of technicians. We take my hon. Friend's point seriously and the national network of science learning centres provides professional development for science teachers and technicians.

Nick Gibb: The shortage of chemistry and physics teachers stems ultimately from the crisis in science teaching in our secondary schools that has developed in the past 20 years, and ill-judged reforms to the curriculum such as the double-award science GCSE. Does the Minister share our concern about the latest reform—the new 21st century science curriculum—which puts more emphasis on societal issues in science than fundamental scientific knowledge and is being boycotted by the top independent schools in favour of the International GCSE? The state sector is not allowed to use that exam because it does not include continuous assessment of coursework. Should not that rule be changed and the IGCSE be made available to all state schools as well as the private sector? If he makes that change, he will have our support on that, too.

Jim Knight: It is relatively early days for me but I am looking into all that. However, we do not agree with the hon. Gentleman—the new programme of study for science does not lower standards. We worked with the science and science education communities to develop a revised programme of study, which has a core that focuses on scientific literacy and provides options for further study and links with other subject areas. It will still be possible for schools to offer GCSEs in the three separate sciences and we are confident that the changes will ensure that our children's scientific knowledge is fit for purpose for this century.

Barry Sheerman: We all know that great strides have been made in getting more students to study science, including chemistry, and maths. Will my hon. Friend also consider engineering? Will he further examine joined-upness and the gaps between study at 16, being oven ready for A-level and being prepared for university? There is something wrong with the joined-upness between the ages of 16 and 18 that puts kids off staying with science. Will my hon. Friend urgently examine that process?

Jim Knight: Of course I must listen carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying, and I will look carefully at engineering. I will also look at the impact of the new diploma, and at how the foundation degree is working. I will ensure that we have the sort of joined-upness that he is looking for.

Subject Skills Shortages

Philip Hollobone: What steps are being taken to address subject skills shortages among teachers.

Alan Johnson: Having enough teachers with the right subject skills remains one of the Government's highest priorities. Ofsted commends our newly qualified teachers as the best trained ever. We have measures in place to ensure that we continue to attract the teachers that we need, particularly in priority subjects. These include bursaries of £9,000 for trainee secondary teachers and golden hellos of up to £5,000. We support a range of professional development measures to enhance the subject skills of serving teachers.

Philip Hollobone: I recently met the secondary heads at Montsaye community college in Rothwell, Montagu school in Kettering and Latimer community arts college in Barton Seagrave, and they all said that skills shortages among teachers in maths, English, design and technology, information and communications technology and music were among their biggest headaches. Despite the policies that the right hon. Gentleman has just announced, the results do not seem to be filtering down to real head teachers in real schools on the ground.

Alan Johnson: There is a problem in those and other subjects, including modern languages. That is why we have looked at this matter again, and why the Training and Development Agency has made recommendations, all of which will be put into effect from September next year. Recruitment into maths teacher training has gone up over the past four years from 1,410 to 2,580, and the figures for science teachers have gone up by a similar amount, from 2,580 to 3,560. But there are still shortages, which is why the bursaries, the golden hellos and all the other efforts that are going into inspiring youngsters to get involved in these subjects are crucial. The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, but it is an issue that we are aware of and that we are seeking to tackle.

Ashok Kumar: The fact that many of our top universities are closing their chemistry departments could have serious consequences for chemistry teachers in the future. Has my right hon. Friend made any direct assessment of the effect that this will have on the recruitment of chemistry teachers?

Alan Johnson: I know that my hon. Friend takes a huge interest in these issues, and I should like to tell him that the number of chemistry graduates has gone up last year and this year. We had a bit of a concern about Sussex university, but it announced recently that it was keeping its chemistry department open. That is no cause for complacency, however. We have to work through the Higher Education Funding Council—universities are independent organisations, as my hon. Friend knows—to ensure that those courses are available. The central point, however, is that we need students who wish to study those subjects. That is why the process starts not at the higher education level in the universities, but much further down in primary and secondary schools.

Sarah Teather: One in four modern language teachers are teaching a subject in which they have no qualification beyond A-level. Given the difficulty that the Government are having in recruiting graduates to teacher training, would it not be sensible also to invest in retraining existing teachers in those specialist areas?

Alan Johnson: We are doing some of that as well. Through the national centre for excellence in teaching mathematics and other learning centres, we are seeking to ensure that we give qualifications to those who come into teaching late. As for modern languages, we are using a number of strategies to increase the number of teachers with a specialism in their subject, but that does not detract from the ability to bring in people who have a degree in another subject and switch them over to modern languages. That is a way of tackling the skills shortage, and a combination of both methods is necessary.

David Taylor: Would the Secretary of State care to say a little about the success of the pilot scheme for the repayment of teachers' loans in relation to shortage areas? The prime scheme ended on 30 June 2005, although the final tranche of applicants was allowed up to 30 June 2006. This is particularly important in areas such as science and my own subject, mathematics, in which there has been a chronic shortage for a very long time, predating this Government by decades.

Alan Johnson: If my hon. Friend will accept this, I will write to him on this issue. My understanding so far—from my two weeks' experience in this job—is that that scheme has worked very well, and that we are now looking at a new phase. We are drawing on the lessons that we have learned from the previous period. I will write to my hon. Friend with the full details immediately after questions.

Charles Walker: I have seven secondary schools in my constituency, but I shall spare the Minister the pleasure of having them read out. [Hon. Members: "Shame!"] I would be delighted to read them out if that is what my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) wants. More seriously, one thing common to the entirety of my constituency and Hertfordshire is a lack ofmaths teachers at secondary school level. Indeed, advertisements for a new teacher often go completely unanswered. Can the Secretary of State provide something encouraging for me to take back to the head teachers in my constituency about what the Government are going to do to encourage more people into the teaching profession, specifically into mathematics teaching, in the east and south-east region?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman will recall the Chancellor's Budget statement in which, as part of the 10-year science and innovation framework, he announced a number of measures for a variety of subjects, but particularly for maths. The intention is that the number of specialist mathematics teachers will have been increased dramatically by 2014. Currently,88 per cent. of maths teachers have a specialism in maths, which we aim to increase to 95 per cent. by 2014. That, together with the other procedures that I mentioned—the golden hellos, bursaries and so forth— will have a dramatic effect. Overall, the number of maths teachers has increased, but we need more of them, particularly with the maths specialism, to teach the subject properly.

Secondary School Places (Wellingborough)

Peter Bone: What estimate he has made of the number of secondary school aged children in Wellingborough who have not been allocated a secondary school place.

Jim Knight: Northamptonshire county council is responsible for ensuring that all parents in Wellingborough who want a place for their child are given one. The Tory county council has told the Department that all parents who applied for a secondary school place for September 2006 were offered one on 1 March, the national offer date.

Peter Bone: I will take that answer, if I may, with a pinch of salt. Wellingborough is a fast-expanding town with thousands of new homes being built, but under the Labour Government, one of its four secondary schools has been demolished, leaving the remaining three schools grossly overcrowded with some children being bussed to school, some parents moving from Wellingborough to get an education for their children and the scandal of many children being left at home with no school to go to. Is the Department for Education and Skills fit for purpose?

Jim Knight: I think that the hon. Gentleman is stretching things a little, so he needs to look at the facts. Generally, for each year group in his area, there are 704 places across the three schools and about 630 pupils for those schools: there is a surplus. Those figures were supplied by the Tory county council. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is a problem with school places in Wellingborough, he needs to go to his friends in his party who run his local authority to get them to sort it out.

Education Links (UK/China)

Mark Tami: If he will take steps to build higher education links between the UK and China.

Bill Rammell: There are 160 links between our universities and those in China, and 53,000 students from China studying in the UK. This month, I visited China with three vice-chancellors to explore the scope for greater collaboration. We have expanded the scholarships for excellence programme, and the second phase of the Prime Minister's initiative for international education will enable us to extend and deepen our higher education partnerships with China.

Mark Tami: I thank the Minister for that answer. Given the remarkable pace of growth and change in China, does he agree that we need to do more to establish greater links between UK and Chinese universities? I am aware of the links with Loughborough, Nottingham and Liverpool, but how do we encourage our other universities to follow suit?

Bill Rammell: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that we need greater higher education collaboration, but we are building from a high base, with 160 collaboration initiatives in place. My hon. Friend refers to the specific initiatives of Nottingham and Liverpool universities. Given that more of China's students are home grown, those initiatives are a key element of our future higher education engagement with China, so we are strongly supporting them.

Mark Pritchard: Notwithstanding the Government's own problems with mandarins this week, does the Minister agree that Mandarin should be rolled out to all schools, particularly at secondary level, so that Britain remains competitive against global competition, not least from China?

Bill Rammell: I certainly want young people in this country to study modern languages in greater numbers across the board. Our commitment that in every primary school by 2010 there will be an opportunity for the teaching and study of a modern foreign language is an important initiative, and I am encouraged by the fact that undergraduate application numbers to universities this year to study Mandarin have increased by some 53 per cent.

Sharon Hodgson: Is my hon. Friend aware of Northumbria university, which has one of the largest overseas student bodies in the UK? It has 1,000 students from China, which is a quarter of the overseas student body of 4,000, and it also teaches 2,000 students on—

Brian Iddon: Distance learning.

Sharon Hodgson: Yes, distance learning. I thank my hon. Friend. The university has 2,000 students who live in China doing distance learning. I would recommend that any hon. Member visit Northumbria university to find out from its best practice how it does that and learn from it.

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for her interest in this area. I recently met with the pro vice-chancellor of Northumbria university, who is leading on those issues. While we have about 53,000 Chinese students coming to study in this country, which is welcome, I firmly believe that we have a strategic national interest in getting more British students to study in China. We will be looking to see how we can support them.

Boris Johnson: I congratulate the Minister on the steps he is taking to build up links with China. As we know how important it is that UK universities should have a good international reputation, and that there can be no greater deterrent to international students than the prospect that they might not have their degrees marked, may I urge him now to break his sphinx-like silence and say, loud and clear, that Chinese and other international students must have their papers marked this year?

Bill Rammell: I have certainly not shown a sphinx-like silence on this issue. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are not involved in the dispute between universities and the trade unions, but quite rightly, given my concern for students, both home and overseas, I have kept in contact with both sides. I am pleased that the employers and the unions involved in the dispute have been and, as we speak, are continuing to talk to each other at ACAS.
	I strongly urge everyone involved in the dispute not to continue to take any action that would jeopardise the assessment timetable for students and disrupt their studies. I hope that, following those talks, the unions will ballot their members as soon as possible.

Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, my hon. Friend will be aware of the close links between the university of Central Lancashire and China, as well as the number of students exchanged, but can we use those good avenues to ensure that we also get the voice of democracy across to China and that students do not have to suffer religious intolerance, which we see coming out of China? Maybe there is a good role for UK universities to play to ensure that that continues.

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I have recently visited the university of Central Lancashire to discuss that, among many other issues. In terms of the change and development of China, the very fact that we have close links and that our students are travelling in both directions enables us to have a better dialogue with the Chinese Government over those issues.

Universities (Academic Freedom)

Michael Gove: If he will make a statement on academic freedom in universities.

Bill Rammell: Academic freedom is a fundamental principle of our higher education system. It is vital that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and voice controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy.

Michael Gove: I thank the Minister for that reply. He recently appointed Dr. Atta Ullah Siddiqui of the Islamic Foundation in Leicester to review Islamic education at university. Given that the Islamic Foundation has been described by the BBC's "Panorama" as one of "the most influential" outposts of "militant Islamist ideology" in Europe, given that it led the militant opposition to Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" and given that it promotes the work of Abu Ala Mawdudi, who called for a worldwide Islamic revolution, how is this move likely to promote freedom in our universities?

Bill Rammell: This is an important issue and an important review that we are pursuing. It is crucial that we get it right. I appointed Dr. Siddiqui after careful consideration and decided that he was the best-qualified of a number of candidates. If the hon. Gentleman looks at Dr. Siddiqui's record, what he has said and what he has written, they will show that he has a commitment to improving relations between Muslims and the wider community. He is vice-chair of the Christian-Muslim association launched by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He also has a distinguished academic record, and in terms of the number of questions that have been put forward, he has categorically assured me that he has no links to the Jamaat-e-Islami party. I think that he is a very credible candidate to take on this task.

David Willetts: We completely agree with the Minister about the importance of academic freedom. Does he agree, however, that the freedom that academics enjoy must be matched by a responsibility to their students? If the strike by academics were to leave many students unable to take their degrees and jeopardise their careers, that would be taking academic freedom much too far. Further to the Minister's answer, will he confirm that he will support universities that legitimately make alternative arrangements to ensure that exam papers are marked this summer?

Bill Rammell: The answer to that question is, of course, yes. The Government want absolutely to ensure that students are not adversely affected by this dispute. We have made it clear on several occasions that a resolution of the dispute is crucial. I regard it as an encouraging sign—I put it no stronger than that—that talks were held at ACAS on Tuesday and that talks are taking place today. We urge the trade unions to put an offer to their members and hope that the dispute is resolved as quickly as possible.

Secondary School Places (Milton Keynes)

Mark Lancaster: If he will make a statement on the availability of secondary school places in Milton Keynes.

Jim Knight: As I made clear in my response to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), the local authority determines the demand for and supply of places at its schools, which is a procedure reinforced by the Education and Inspections Bill. Where an authority demonstrates that it cannot fund the statutory number of places from the funding that it is allocated, it can apply to my Department for exceptional funding. It should be noted that the Government have met all funding requests from Milton Keynes borough council since 1997.

Mark Lancaster: Every day, Milton Keynes welcomes 13 new residents as the Government force the city to expand. That puts enormous pressure on our schools. Currently, 450 pupils are being educated in temporary accommodation, and the temporary accommodation at Oakgrove is now set to stay for another five years. Given that the Government are happy to set the expansion plan for Milton Keynes until 2031 but funding for schools only until 2008, does the Minister at least accept that temporary schools appear to be here to stay?

Jim Knight: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the expansion of Milton Keynes and the subsequent need for enhanced infrastructure. Under this Government, Milton Keynes and its schools have been allocated more than £125 million of capital support for 2005-06 and 2007-08 alone, including£86 million based on new pupil places criteria. Iam aware of his concerns about temporary accommodation, and the overall position on temporary accommodation has improved dramatically under this Government. He will know that, in 1997, investment in school buildings was just £683 million, and that will increase to more than £8 billion by 2010-11. The Government are committed to ensuring that we do not need temporary buildings and that we keep them to a minimum, but, clearly, where there is rapid expansion of population and schools, they will be used.

Prisoner Education

Greg Clark: If he will make a statement on his policy on the education of prisoners.

Phil Hope: With the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education and Skills has produced an education policy for prisoners and offenders generally, "Reducing Re-Offending Through Skills and Employment". We aim to improve the skills of offenders, including prisoners, and to improve their employment prospects, so that we can help to reduce reoffending and ensure that those individuals make a positive contribution to society.

Greg Clark: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware, however, that 70 per cent. of prisoners are illiterate, though it is obvious to anyone that their rehabilitation depends on them learning to read and write? Is he also aware that the director general of the Prison Service appeared before the Public Accounts Committee, on which I serve, and pointed out that only 30 per cent. of prisoners have access to education during their sentences? He said that there is
	"a limit to the education one should reasonably do with prisoners."
	Does the Minister agree that that is a shameful assessment?

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a huge basic skills gap among prisoners, and we are doing a great deal to ensure that we deliver more skills for life qualifications to offenders, including those in prison. We have doubled the number of offenders receiving skills for life level 1 literacy qualifications, which has been a huge success. The document to which I referred spells out in detail how we are trying to improve the quality of training inside our prisons to widen access to education and training and to ensure that more offenders, inside and outside prison, gain skills that lead them into jobs. If an offender gets a job, the prospects of them reoffending are much reduced.

Rob Marris: For many years, education funding for young people in the secure estate was less than two thirds of funding for the average pupil in a secondary school, although young people in the secure estate are some of the lowest educational achievers and are some of the most vulnerable members of society. What are the Government doing to increase per capita funding for those young people to a higher level than the average funding for secondary school pupils?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is right to raise the important issue of young offenders. I was at Feltham young offender institution last week talking to young people who were undergoing education. Many are alienated, disaffected and disengaged from education. They are in secure accommodation because they committed offences that merited imprisonment, and they are some of the most challenging individuals with whom to work.
	I spoke to staff at Feltham, who, like staff in other youth custody institutions throughout the country, do a fantastic job in re-engaging young people in education, and giving them skills and aspirations that they have never had before. It is a challenging environment in which to work, and I was deeply impressed. We have doubled resources for the education of offenders, and that increase, along with the talent that is there and the new Offenders Learning and Skills Service—which is now being delivered throughout the secure estate—will raise aspirations and the quality of the education given to young people in our prisons.

Nick Hurd: Does the Minister recognise the concern expressed by the Home Affairs Committee and the Prison Reform Trust about the possibility that progress in the meeting of basic skills targets will be eroded by the ever-increasing number of people going through the system, the high level of transfer between institutions, and the apparently large differentials between institutions in terms of provision? Does he share those concerns, and what is he doing to address them?

Phil Hope: I do share those concerns. We are taking a number of steps to ensure that we can deliver education and training in a service in which prisoners move from one institution to another. That is a real challenge, but our Green Paper specifies a number of measures to deal with it. They include modularised courses, which mean that an offender who has been taking a course and is moved from one institution to another can continue to study because the second institution provides a similar course.
	The transfer of records is a problem. We want to improve the manual transfer system, and, ideally, to adopt a system of electronic transfer so that prisoners' learning profiles can follow them to new institutions. All our proposals are spelt out in detail in the Green Paper. The consultation finishes at the end of this month, and later in the year, once consensus has been achieved, I shall present proposals for the implementation of those changes.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the importance of linking education in prisons directly to the development of skills for employment, but will his Department examine the way in which education is structured in prisons? It is important to engage prisoners who are serving short-term sentences. Many of those prisoners are women. Can they be encouraged to take advantage of such programmes, and can the courses be structured in such a way that they can be continued following release?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend has put her finger on a key issue: how we can improve the quality of education and training in our prison system. Inspection is now conducted at a level equivalent to mainstream education standards, and as a result of that regime, more prisons are paying attention to the quality of education.
	I met a young woman in Low Newton prison in Durham who was taking a painting and decorating course. The possibility of a qualification leading to a job was a bonus, but it also meant that she could decorate a nursery at home for her child. We would like that combination of improved skills and enhanced life chances to be replicated throughout the prison system.

John Hayes: The Government have a criminal record on prison education. A damning report from the Education and Skills Committee stated that 50 per cent. of inmates lacked the skills needed for 96 per cent. of jobs. A year later, only four of its 55 recommendations have been implemented. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is a member of the Public Accounts Committee and whose work I commend, found that only 30 per cent. of prisoners receive any formal education during their sentences.
	The Government set a target: prisoners should devote 24 hours a week to purposeful activity, including education. Why, given the Minister's fine words, have the Government—according to the director general of the Prison Service—dropped their target for prison education altogether?

Phil Hope: We are in fact exceeding those targets as a result of increasing investment in the Prison Service, and offenders now have more and longer opportunities to engage in education. During the day in prisons, there are not only education courses but, because of the way in which prisons are run, other learning opportunities to enable skills levels to be increased, such as catering and making things in workshops. Training and education is provided across the piece and is seen as an integral part of the way in which the Prison Service operates. We have delivered 18 of the recommendations in the Select Committee report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Four of them are long term and are being delivered as we speak, four others do not require any action—they were recommendations for others—and six we disagreed with.
	Our record on delivering the recommendations of that report—I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that it is a good analysis—suggests that we have made and are making real progress. As we build on the Green Paper this year, we will see further delivery of our commitment to improve education and training for prisoners, so that their chances of reoffending are reduced and they can get a job when they leave prison.

EU Students (Loan Repayments)

Nicholas Winterton: What estimate he has made of the number of EU-domiciled students who will receive loans for study at a UK higher education institution and will then default on repayment of those loans.

Bill Rammell: We estimate that 14,000 students each year from other European Union countries who are studying in English institutions will be able to take out loans for tuition fees. We have put in place robust measures so that after graduation, these borrowers repay their loans—just as United Kingdom graduates do. Repayments are affordable and linked to income, and will be collected even if the graduate returns home.

Nicholas Winterton: I am very grateful to the Minister for that constructive reply, but what will happen to those students who do not keep the Student Loans Company informed of any changes and those who move, for example? How will they be traced? Is it right that the hard-pressed British taxpayer should be responsible for picking up the cost of those loans that are not repaid? Why, moreover, are EU countries apparently not prepared to help the UK in recovering these loans?

Bill Rammell: I made a parliamentary written statement on this issue on Tuesday, and we have done a number of things. We have deliberately introduced lower repayment thresholds for less wealthy EU countries, so that students who return to them will nevertheless make an income-contingent repayment. Crucially, we have put in place procedures to enable the Student Loans Company to take action to enforce the debt in court both in the UK and abroad, if necessary. We intend to use EC regulation 44/2001, which will allow the SLC to enforce a judgment made in the UK courts and in the rest of the EU. On rights and responsibilities, these provisions stem from a European Court of Justice ruling back in 1988. I ask the hon. Gentleman to recall how many times in the nine subsequent years, when the Conservatives were in office, the Conservative Government challenged the ruling. In my recollection, they did so not once.

Chris Bryant: Contrary to the implication of this question, which is that EU-domiciled students are foreigners, is it not true that actually, all British students are also EU-domiciled? Indeed, they have benefited enormously from greater opportunities to study elsewhere in Europe over the past few years, but such opportunities depend on reciprocal arrangements with other countries. If we are to ensure that those opportunities really are advanced for young students—be they from the Rhondda or anywhere else in the UK—is it not vital that we strengthen our relationship with other countries? Would it not also be a good idea to have greater integration of our legal systems, so that we can pursue debts elsewhere in Europe?

Bill Rammell: My hon. Friend tempts me too far on this issue, but I strongly agree with him that we have a massive strategic national interest in a two-way flow of students: students from Britain going elsewhere in the European Union, and other EU students coming to this country. But it is important to make it clear that, although we welcome those overseas students, it is right that on leaving their courses, all those who can contribute to the cost of their higher education should do so, regardless of what country they are from and where they choose to live. The arrangements that we have announced this week will ensure that that happens.

Further Education

Helen Jones: What steps he is taking to increase the participation in further education of people with no qualifications.

Parmjit Dhanda: A wide range of policies exists to increase participation in learning by adults without qualifications. Our national employer training programme, Train to Gain, and the entitlement to free tuition for a first level 2 will both be available throughout England from this September. We also announced in our recent White Paper a new foundation learning tier to create progressive pathways below level 2.

Helen Jones: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post, and I also welcome the steps that the Government are taking to improve participation in further education. Will he consider the issue that I raised in a recent debate in Westminster Hall, which is the closure of some adult education courses that, without leading to qualifications in themselves, actually bring into education adults who have no qualifications and who would not come through the college doors otherwise? Will he undertake to monitor that issue carefully and to learn from the success of adult and community learning in increasing the participation rates of those without any qualifications, so that we can get to those who are hardest to reach?

Parmjit Dhanda: My hon. Friend makes her point exceedingly well and I enjoyed reading the report of her Adjournment debate in the early hours of this morning. She will be well aware that the personal and community development learning courses that she mentioned in her debate are being protected by a fund of some £210 million for the next two years, and I know that she will also agree that the Government face a challenge in terms of equipping people for the workplace at level 2. Part of the difficulty is that over the years so many people have taken courses below level 2 and have not made it through to that level, and 51 per cent. of those who do not have any qualifications do not end up in work, whereas 75 per cent. of those with a level 2 qualification do find work. We want to complete the pathway from no qualification to level 2, so I am sure that my hon. Friend will support the new foundation learning tier that will be implemented from September to do just that.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome the Minister to his post and I entirely endorse the comments by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). It is disappointing that the Government have cut the funding for the learning and skills council in north Yorkshire to such an extent that York college is no longer able to offer the sort of evening classes and community education that are so important in rural areas. The Minister mentions level 2 qualifications, but why should funding for that level exclude funding for community education and evening classes? The Government must surely fund both.

Parmjit Dhanda: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but provision for spending the £210 million that I mentioned, which is ring-fenced for the next two years, is patchy nationally. Provision is not consistent across the board, and we will look at that. I am determined not to be overtly partisan on my first outing at the Dispatch Box, but it is important for Opposition Members to realise that funding for further education has increased by 48 per cent. since 1997, whereas it fell by 14 per cent. in the last term of the Conservative Government.

Lynda Waltho: In adult learners week, will my hon. Friend join me in congratulatingmy constituent, William McSorley, who through learndirect has gained qualifications in language, literacy and IT skills and become a confident and capable library user? Will my hon. Friend also undertake to protect funding for such initiatives, as provided at Stourbridge library?

Parmjit Dhanda: My hon. Friend makes a good point and I commend the work that she does in her constituency. I also congratulate her constituent. Over the course of this decade, we are seeking to provide basic skills to another 2.25 million people, and we are on course to meet that significant target. My hon. Friend's constituent and many others will be the beneficiaries of that and I hope that it will equip them for a place in the work force.

Trust Schools

Gordon Prentice: What recent estimate he has made of the number of trust schools that will be established by 2010.

Alan Johnson: I have not made any estimate of the number of trust schools that will be established by 2010. Our proposals are about schools making decisions that are right for them and their pupils in order to raise standards. It will be for individual schools to decide whether they want to acquire a trust and what form that trust should take, after consultation with parents and other stakeholders.

Gordon Prentice: Why is it so difficult to give a figure for trust schools? After all, we know that the Government want more than 200 city academies, even though they depend on super-rich sponsors coming forward. Will the current controversy and police investigation into alleged cash for honours have an impact on the numbers of would-be sponsors?

Alan Johnson: I cannot give my hon. Friend a figure, as we do not have one. Many schools are already interested in becoming trusts, but the number will grow when the Education and Inspections Bill has completed its passage through the House and receives Royal Assent. I can tell him that many people are waiting to sponsor city academies. Although the controversies to which he alluded were real, they have not in any way inhibited people from coming forward. Most of them want to remain anonymous, but they all want to put something back into the communities from which they came. A lot of them have deprived backgrounds, and all the academies will be in areas of educational deprivation. Whatever their expectations, I think that it is commendable that such people want to sponsor the academies. We should congratulate them, not condemn them.

Desmond Swayne: How does the Secretary of State square his answer to the substantive question with the enthusiasm of the Prime Minister's foreword to the White Paper? It was clear that he envisaged that every school, both primary and secondary, would become a trust school.

Alan Johnson: My answer was to the question about whether we had a figure for the number of trusts that would be established by 2010. I said that we did not have that figure. That is a world away from saying that we are not enthusiastic about setting up trusts, but it is up to schools to make that decision. I believe that a host of schools will wish to become trusts, and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is right to speak about the policy with enthusiasm. It is being put forward because we believe that trusts can bring together experience from the outside world of universities, colleges and business and that that can contribute to raising educational attainment in a school. That is why many schools will wish to become trusts.

Childcare Work force

Joan Humble: What action is being taken to improve skills within the child care work force.

Kitty Ussher: What steps are being taken to improve skills within the childcare work force.

Beverley Hughes: To improve quality in early education and care, we are developing a new graduate level role—the early years professional—and increasing skill levels for other staff. We have also introduced a transformation fund, worth £250 million over the next two years. That supplements the considerable financial support that we already give local authorities to develop their early years and child care work force.

Joan Humble: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and I especially welcome the announcement of the transformation fund. When she issues guidance on staff training and development, will she take into account and acknowledge the existing expertise of the many people who have worked in child care for many years? Will she make sure that that is taken into account in the proposals to recruit and train a new and more diverse work force in child care?

Beverley Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I also commend her on her work to promote understanding and awareness of the need for quality in early education and child care. I assure her that we will take account of the expertise to which she referred. We want to make it easier for people in various parts of the children's work force to build on their existing qualification and find pathways to higher levels of skill. That will enable them to have more choice about where they work in the children's service. The integrated qualifications framework that we are developing will give existing child care practitioners of various kinds many more development opportunities, and in that way it will contribute to the quality that young children need.

Kitty Ussher: The Minister will be aware that the pay of those who work with children is notoriously low. That is not helpful when we are trying to attract people with higher skills into that sector. Can she explain the effect on child care workers' pay of the Government's actions?

Beverley Hughes: Yes, I can. Pay is agreed ultimately by employers, staff and their representatives. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, as a result of the Government's push towards quality and higher skills levels in the children's work force, the survey published today for child care and early years providers for 2005 shows that the average level of pay for staff working, certainly in group settings, has increased across the board in the period 2002-05 by 16 per cent. on average for hourly pay. That compares well with a 10 per cent. increase for the United Kingdom as a whole. In addition, I have asked the Children's Workforce Development Council to report to me by September on the whole package of pay and conditions and on how we might look at that to improve recruitment and retention.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Community Court (Nottingham)

Graham Allen: What recent discussions the Crown Prosecution Service has had with the Department for Constitutional Affairs about the proposal for a community court in Nottingham; and if he will make a statement.

Mike O'Brien: I have spoken to the Department for Constitutional Affairs Ministers about a community court in Nottingham. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has asked my hon. Friend to provide a paper on the options available and I know that the Nottinghamshire local criminal justice board, together with the Crown Prosecution Service, are keen to develop these proposals.

Graham Allen: The Solicitor-General will be aware of the sloppy, slapdash research done this week, which was based on inaccurate census figures, inaccurate boundaries and out-of-date population numbers, which has condemned Nottingham wrongly as the city with the highest crime in the United Kingdom. Will he do something that the authors of that report did not do, which is to visit Nottingham, talk to me, the local chief of police and the leader of the council, and see what great work has gone on in the past few years to force crime down by 15 per cent. in five years and reduce our murder rate by a dramatic 63 per cent.? As part of that will he also ensure that he meets the CPS and gives a warm welcome and fair wind to our proposal for a community justice centre?

Mike O'Brien: I am happy to go to Nottingham to look at the proposals for a community justice court and to talk to Jon Collins, the leader of Nottingham city council, and chief superintendent Marcus Beale, both of whom have expressed serious concerns about the way in which the report suggests that the situation in Nottingham is far worse than it is.

Probation Service

David Heathcoat-Amory: What discussions the Law Officers have had with the Home Office on the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the work of the probation service.

Peter Bone: What discussions the Attorney-General has had with the Home Office on the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the work of the probation service.

Mike O'Brien: The Attorney-General and I have had regular discussions with Home Office Ministers about the probation service. In accordance with longstanding convention, law officers do not disclose whether or not they have given advice on a particular issue.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Government are in a complete muddle about human rights. Ministers regularly complain about an over-cautious interpretation of the Human Rights Act 1998 by Government agencies and judges. Does the Solicitor-General agree that we can at least amend the Human Rights Act, but that that is not true for the separate and even more prescriptive EU charter of fundamental rights, which the Prime Minister unwisely signed up to as part of the European Constitution? Does the Solicitor-General think it was wise of the Government to sign up to a charter which would put these human rights matters permanently beyond the control of the British Government, British Parliament and British courts?

Mike O'Brien: The status of the charter is primarily political at present; it is not part of our domestic law, but the European convention is, through the Human Rights Act, and it can be interpreted in our courts. The convention provides a basic list of fundamental democratic rights that we should respect, so I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's view that there is a mess in respect of the convention. We need to ensure that the convention is dealt with in a way that protects both the interests of society as a whole as well as the rights of individuals.

David Heathcoat-Amory: What about the charter?

Mike O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the charter, but the question he asked was about the human rights convention and the probation service.

Peter Bone: For clarification, are the Government considering amending the Human Rights Act?

Mike O'Brien: The Human Rights Act is enormously important. It sets out articles on respect for life, prohibition of torture and degrading treatment, freedom from arbitrary arrest, the right to a fair trial and to freedom of thought, association, religion and speech, privacy and property, all of which are in the convention that was brought into our law by the Act.
	The convention was drawn up in 1950 in the aftermath of the war and those freedoms continue to represent the civil and political values of a modern democracy and have been signed up to across Europe. The convention may have been written in different times, but most of its articles balance the rights of individuals and the interests of society. We shall look particularly at article 3, which does not include such a balancing clause in respect of the interests of society. We will not repeal the Human Rights Act, but we will not rule out amendment should that be necessary. At present, our view is that some of the problems that have arisen are due to officials taking a view about human rights that is in error, and that might be resolved by better and stronger guidance rather than by amendment.

David Taylor: Given the problems that the partly privatised Prison Service is experiencing in establishing an audit trail on foreign prisoners, does the Solicitor-General believe that the soon to be privatised probation service will have similar difficulties, as the ways in which it manages offenders in the community might compromise their human rights?

Mike O'Brien: I certainly believe that the way in which the probation service will be organised will improve our management of prisoners and reduce crime. The people of this country have already seen a reduction in the level of crime; an overall reduction of 44 per cent. over the last 10 years. We can be proud about that, and we are organising the probation service to ensure that that process of crime reduction continues.

Simon Hughes: Do Law Officers agree with the views set outin the article by David Pannick QC in  The Times on23 May? He stated that the Human Rights Act is not responsible for the release of rapists into the community, nor for decisions about whether they are safe to be in the community, which are the responsibility of the Parole Board; that it is not responsible for the failure of the probation service to track down foreign convicted people who should have been deported; and that the Act is a good and excellent thing, far more important for the majority of law-abiding citizens than for a minority who might have been to prison.

Mike O'Brien: The Human Rights Act is a major achievement of the Government and there is no question of withdrawing from the convention or, indeed, of blaming the whole Act for particular problems. It is right, however, that when problems arise we look at ways to resolve them. As I indicated, on some issues—especially in the Rice case—some officials have sometimes taken an over-zealous view of the interpretation of the legislation. That might be dealt with primarily through more robust guidance to those officials and by making sure that we take the strong view that in each case there should be not only a recognition of the rights of individuals but of the interests and security of society, and the right of society not to be subject to people being arbitrarily or wrongly released.

Dominic Grieve: The Solicitor-General has been drawn out in his replies. He started by telling the House that he could not say what discussions he had been having with the Home Office about the operation of the probation service and then he became a bit more forthcoming. If it is correct that in the Rice case, for instance, there was a serious failure at an official level to understand how the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights ought to operate, meaning that officials wrongly failed to provide a proper degree of supervision ofMr. Rice, I assume that that is a matter of concern to the Law Officers. Although I would not expect a comment to be made on individual cases, may we have an assurance that this is an area in which the Law Officers are providing guidance to the Home Office and its relevant agencies on how to do their job properly and well within the scope of the ECHR?

Mike O'Brien: I have already indicated that I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether Law Officers have given particular guidance to the Home Office. He is well aware of that convention. I know that he is a great supporter of the Human Rights Act, unlike many of his Back Benchers. He voted for the Human Rights Act and was supportive throughout the debate. I remember that well. The Anthony Rice case, which resulted in the tragic death of Naomi Bryant, was an example of officials not properly balancing the rights of individuals against society's need for proper security. The Human Rights Act provides for that balancing test. Where that is not being applied properly—as the chief inspector of probation made it clear in the report that it was not in that case—we must ensure that the officials concerned are given an adequate understanding of the Human Rights Act, stronger guidance and better training. We are looking at whether further changes need to be made in some areas of legislation that may or may not involve the Human Rights Act. We need to look at the matter with care and see what lessons can be learned.

Crown Prosecution Service

Julie Morgan: What plans he has to improve inter-agency working by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mike O'Brien: The Crown Prosecution Service will improve inter-agency working by delivering initiatives such as conditional cautioning, the prolific and priority offender scheme and prosecution team performance management. We will also develop programmes that are currently under way such as charging; no witness, no justice; and the effective trial management programme.

Julie Morgan: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that in areas such as domestic violence, it is especially important that the Crown Prosecution Service train and work closely with agencies such as Women's Aid, Victim Support and the probation service, so that women and children are made as safe as possible by a shared understanding of what domestic violence is and by the ability to share information?

Mike O'Brien: I certainly agree with that. Importantly, in recent years inter-agency working has had a dramatic effect on the way in which we deal with domestic violence. In particular, inter-agency working resulted in 25 specialist domestic violence courts being set up by April 2006. We are making 25 further bids for domestic violence courts that will be based on inter-agency working. There are proposals to introduce independent domestic violence advisers who will work on an inter-agency basis to improve the prosecutionof domestic violence cases. Importantly, there was a43 per cent. increase in recorded domestic violence cases in 2005-06 compared with 2004-05, mainly due to higher levels of reporting. However, unsuccessful outcomes in terms of prosecutions fell by 4.7 per cent. in 2005-06. We are improving the way in which we are prosecuting cases.

Business of the House

Theresa May: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for the week after the recess?

Jack Straw: The business for the week after the recess will be as follows:
	Monday 5 June—Second Reading of the NHS Redress Bill  [Lords].
	Tuesday 6 June—Second Reading of the Company Law Reform Bill  [Lords].
	Wednesday 7 June—Opposition day [16th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 8 June—Second Reading of the Compensation Bill  [Lords].
	Friday 9 June—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the beginning of the following week will be as follows:
	Monday 12 June—Second Reading of the Fraud Bill  [Lords].
	Let me also inform the House of the business for Westminster Hall for June:
	Thursday 15 June—A debate on the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on the human rights annual report.
	Thursday 22 June—A debate on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
	Thursday 29 June—A debate on the report from the Health Committee on changes to primary care trusts.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving us the business for the week after recess.
	Figures issued yesterday show that 15 per cent. of new housing development is on garden land. Houses are being knocked down with flats built in their place, and houses are being crammed into people's back gardens. No wonder children are getting obese if they do not have any gardens to run around in. May we have a debate in Government time on the ten-minute Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), which would change the definition of brownfield sites to exclude gardens?
	Yesterday, the European Union licensed Herceptin for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. It is expected that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence will approve its use in the next month. Two weeks ago, when I raised the issue of Herceptin with the Leader of the House, he said:
	"I shall follow up the right hon. Lady's request that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health make a statement on advice to PCTs about Herceptin."—[ Official Report, 11 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 508.]
	No such statement has been made. Given that many women's lives depend on it, will the Leader of the House confirm that the Health Secretary will make an urgent statement to the House after recess on the use of Herceptin?
	In January, the Government published the White Paper "Our health, our care, our say: a new direction for community services". It says:
	"You told us ... 'I'd like to see extended opening hours at GP surgeries, including weekends' ... Here's what we're doing ... In future, many GP surgeries will stay open longer and open on Saturdays."
	I have news for the Government. GP surgeries used to open on Saturdays, until the Government's changes to the GP contract led to their being closed. All the Government are doing is desperately trying to get back to the service that people had before this Government interfered.
	The White Paper also says:
	"You told us ... 'I'd like to see hospitals back in the community, run for the community' ... Here's what we're doing ... By bringing health into the local community and linking it more closely with social care, we will make it easier for people to get the help they need."
	However, how are the Government going to do that when about 80 community hospitals, such as Townlands in Henley and the elderly mental illness unit at St. Marks in my constituency, are still threatened with closure? How will health be brought back into the local community if there are fewer community nurses? Is this not another example of a Government in paralysis? May we thus have a debate in Government time on the White Paper on community health services?
	The standards watchdog, Sir Alistair Graham, said that the Prime Minister considered standards to be a
	"peripheral minor issue not worthy of serious consideration".
	Many people have been shocked by news of the sale of a signed copy of the Hutton report to raise money for the Labour party, and more shocked that one of the MPs who organised the event was a Government Minister: the Minister for Pensions Reform. May we have a debate, led by the Prime Minister, on standards in public life, in which he can say whether or not he condones the sale of copies of the Hutton report for party profit?
	On Tuesday, it was revealed that one criminal has escaped from Leyhill open prison every single week for the past three years. Yesterday, the Home Secretary admitted that figures on foreign prisoners that he had given to the Home Affairs Committee the previous day were wrong. Today, we learn that a suspended chief immigration officer facing investigation into claims that he offered a visa for sex was himself an illegal immigrant.
	The former Home Secretary was sacked, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality has been moved, and the Home Secretary says that the Home Office that he inherited is inadequate in
	"IT, leadership, management systems and processes".
	But, of course, we have heard that before. Whenthe right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside(Mr. Blunkett) took over as Home Secretary, he told us that his predecessor, who is now the Leader of the House, had left the Home Office in a mess. He said:
	"Nothing had prepared us for it. It was worse that any of us had imagined possible. God alone knows what Jack did for four years."
	The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside also said that he respected my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) for what he did in the Home Office, and on Tuesday the current Home Secretary also spoke in respectful terms of my right hon. and learned Friend. With the Government in paralysis, it is good to see that the only thing on which Ministers can agree is that the only good Home Secretary is a Conservative Home Secretary.

Jack Straw: The right hon. Lady asks for a debate on the definition of brownfield sites. We are responding to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on that subject. If her party is committing itself to not building on any spare land in people's back gardens, she had better say so. The pressure for housing, particularly in many areas represented by Conservative MPs, means that such land, as well as other brownfield land, will have to be used; otherwise, she and her colleagues will face far worse social problems from a shortage of housing than exist at the moment.
	I note what the right hon. Lady says on Herceptin. Since I made that statement, I think she will accept that things have moved on in a better way. She will be aware that Roche announced yesterday that the drug has been granted a licence for use in early breast cancer. As a result, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has been asked to carry out a fast-track appraisal of Herceptin for early breast cancer. It expects to publish guidance to the NHS in early July.
	On GP surgeries and community nurses, I am delighted to debate our record on the health service compared with the right hon. Lady's Government's record on it. Since we came to office, one of the many records of which I am proud is the increase of 33,000 in the number of doctors, including general practitioners, the increase of 85,000 in the number of nurses, and the 132 new hospitals that have been opened. As a result of what she describes as "interference", which I would describe as "activity", compared with the inactivity over years and years of a Conservative Government, health care for every client and patient group has improved over the past nine years.
	In respect of standards in public life and the signing of the Hutton report, my hon. Friends have apologised—that is in the newspapers today—for something that was obviously inappropriate. I hope that the right hon. Lady will let the matter lie there. I would be delighted to debate standards in public life, because the Conservatives did nothing in their 18 years in government to implement any changes in the regulations relating to standards of conduct in public life. It fell to us. Indeed, much of the responsibility fell to me, as Home Secretary between 1997 and 2001, to implement those changes, and I am very glad that we did.
	As for the wider issues, we have had nine years of a very fine record on crime, law and order, and asylum and immigration. We have always—I include myself in this—been generous to a fault about the former Conservative Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I always felt it important to have him right in front of the cameras, because the more publicity he received, the more support we received for our proposals in 1997 on law and order, which we put before the public. We proposed to cut crime, in place of the rising crime over the previous 18 years, to cut the time it took to process asylum seekers, given that that had risen to 22 months, and to turn around the cut in police numbers, which had dropped under the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That is what we did. Since 1997, there has been a 35 per cent. drop in crime, and the time that it takes to process asylum applications has dropped from 22 months to two months. The number of removals has doubled. In place of the cut of 1,200 planned by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe in asylum and immigration staff, their numbers have increased by 5,000, and there are 14,000 extra police officers on the street—a record of which to be proud.

Jim Devine: May we have a debate on football in the run-up to the World cup, particularly on the need to strengthen the role of fans? Like many football fans, I am appalled that players earn in a week what a nurse would earn on average in five years. In some clubs, season ticket prices have gone up by 47 per cent., which is quite unacceptable. Is it not time to introduce a fans charter and legislation to establish a supporters trust and a fan on every board in Britain?

Jack Straw: As an ardent football fan and season ticket holder, I accept my hon. Friend's concerns about the high rewards for football players and the pressure that some clubs at the top of the leagues have put on the finances of a wide range of clubs. The issue is being examined by a European committee on which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport serves, and I hope that its proposals will be taken seriously. Issues such as a cap on salaries are difficult, but they are not necessarily impossible. We ought to be concerned about the health of the game overall as well as the financial health of one or two clubs.

David Heath: Home Office statistics are rather like Hollywood marriages—they are best timed for the early morning so that when they go wrong it does not ruin the entire day. However, may I ask the Leader of the House about the Home Office's other inadequacies? Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) asked why a key recommendation of the Cullen inquiry after the Dunblane shootings 10 years ago has still not been implemented. Can we have a debate on the fact that the key recommendations of the Bichard inquiry after the Soham murders in 2002 have not yet been implemented? Is not the Home Office failing in its key responsibility to protect the public, and would it not be better if, instead of reorganising the police, it reorganised itself?
	Can we have a debate soon on the collateral damage caused by the NHS funding crisis? Many of us are worried that there will be a knock-on effect on drugs rehabilitation funding, which plays a key role not only in helping vulnerable people but in protecting the public?
	I support the view that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) has introduced an important private Member's Bill. I do not kid myself that his Bill, which is 12th in the list for Second Reading on 14 July, will make a great deal of progress, but many of us are concerned that gardens are considered brownfield sites for planning purposes, thus distorting development in many towns, villages and cities. That ought to be dealt with as a matter of urgency.
	Finally, we learn that the tax credit overpayment figures are—surprise, surprise—to be issued in the recess. I cannot imagine why that should be the case, but will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on the first day after the recess so that hon. Members have the opportunity to ask questions?

Jack Straw: The recommendation of a national firearms register was one of the Cullen inquiry's recommendations. However, the hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that the principal recommendation was far more effective control of firearms overall. I implemented that recommendation as Home Secretary in the first months after we came to office in 1997, and it was one of the few anti-crime measures ever supported by the Liberal Democrats. I shall write to him about the Bichard report.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about an NHS funding crisis. Some trusts face financial pressures, but they do so from a very high base indeed. Spending has doubled in real terms; there has been an increase of 85,000 in the number of nurses, and of 33,000 in the number of doctors; and there are 132 new hospitals across the country. The issue for the hon. Gentleman is whether any Liberal Democrat economic and social policy could possibly have achieved that improvement and turnaround in the economy and in health care.
	In respect of tax credits, I will take account of what the hon. Gentleman says, look at the statements that are likely to be made, and see whether it is possible for Ministers to be questioned on the matter when we get back.

Emily Thornberry: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the arrest this morning by the Israelis of Kate Maynard, a solicitor at the firm of Hickman and Rose, which is based in my constituency? She was due to speak at a conference organised by Avocats sans Frontières and do other legal work, and she has been questioned about her work with Palestinians and about her work obtaining an arrest warrant for the alleged criminal General Doron Almog, which I know my right hon. Friend knows a little about. Can we have a debate on this very important subject, as the arrest would seem on the face of it to be a vindictive act?

Jack Straw: I note what my hon. Friend says. I will ensure that the matter is raised with our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

David Jones: Will the Leader of the House make time available shortly after the recess for an urgent debate on a matter of concern not only to my constituents, but to the entire UK road transport industry—that is, the imminent and indefinite closure of the main London to Holyhead A5 trunk road between Ty-nant and Dinmael in my constituency? It was announced on Friday last week by the Welsh Assembly that because of a dangerous rock face, the road would have to be closed. No indication was given as to how long the closure will last. It may last for well over a year, and although the Assembly has been aware of the problem for a considerable time, it has put no measures in place for an alternative route. The closure will cripple my constituency, cause massive damage to the tourist and farming industry, and cause huge damage to the UK road transport industry, for which that is the principal inland route between London and the ferry port of Holyhead.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, of which I was not aware. By the sound of it, it is principally a matter for which the Welsh Executive is responsible, not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I will raise it with my right hon. Friend, as well as ensuring that the hon. Gentleman's feelings about the matter, which I well understand, are communicated to the First Minister of the Welsh Executive.

Martin Linton: When the House returns, may we have a debate on the problems of industrial firms in London? The largest industrial concern in my constituency is Young's Brewery, which told its employees this week that, having failed to find an alternative site in Wandsworth, it is moving to Bedford. Many of us feel that the departure of the Ram brewery, which has been there for 425 years, will rip the heart out of Wandsworth. Should we not debate how we can keep firms like Young's in the communities that they serve, before the developers turn us all into identical and soulless suburbs?

Jack Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, having faced problems of the closure of one regional brewery in my constituency, and having ensured the maintenance of another. Those of us who enjoy Young's products also like the association with London, so I understand his concerns. Let me also say, however, that overall manufacturing investment is very strong and everybody accepts that there must be some changes in the location of employment.

Peter Bone: Waiting lists for in-patient NHS operations longer than six months were in December 959, in January 957, in February 904 and in March 915, according to a parliamentary answer that I received from the Secretary of State for Health. The Prime Minister and other Ministers have continually claimed from the Dispatch Box that the number was zero. What measures can the Leader of the House take to ensure that statements by Ministers from the Dispatch Box are accurate?

Jack Straw: I do not dismiss the figure that the hon. Gentleman gives, which is just under 1,000, but it is one or two per constituency, compared with the thousands per constituency that existed in 1997. On accuracy, as he knows, we are assiduous, as previous Ministers have been, in ensuring that if figures are given that are not accurate, they are corrected very quickly.

Sharon Hodgson: Is the Leader of the House aware of the recent Fairtalk survey highlighted in my early-day motion 2161?
	 [That this House recognises the concerns expressed by many hon. Members and others about the high cost of incoming calls to hospital bedside telephones provided by Patient-line, Premier and Hospital Telephone Services; warmly welcomes the Fairtalk survey carried out by Patient and Public Involvement forums across England which covered 40 per cent, of all hospitals using these services and questioned 1,255 patients and members of the public, a much larger sample than previously surveyed; notes that in 88 per cent, of cases people surveyed rated the cost of inbound calls as expensive or very expensive and in some cases as causing real hardship, and that 80 per cent, were not aware of any areas within hospitals where they could use a mobile phone; and calls on the Government to ensure these findings are taken into full account during the current review of the use of mobile phones in hospitals and when awarding or reviewing the contracts to the providers of bedside telephone systems.]
	The survey carried out by patient and public involvement forums across the country found that 88 per cent. of people considered hospital bedside telephone systems to be too expensive. May we therefore have a debate on whether to allow the use of mobile phones in controlled and safe areas in hospitals to end people's dependence on those overpriced services?

Jack Straw: I will raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. It can only be a matter of time before the problems of mobile telephones interfering with medical equipment, which is the reason why their use is controlled, are overcome.

Nigel Dodds: May we have a debate soon in Government time on the growing knife culture in society? The Leader of the House may be aware that yesterday a three-month knife amnesty got under way in Northern Ireland. It has been widely welcomed, not least by the parents of Thomas Devlin, a young teenager in my constituency, who was knifed to death last August. I pay tribute to the campaign that his parents have waged for the amnesty and for tougher measures against those who carry and use knives to commit crime. A debate would allow us to discuss these issues and see what more can be done to eradicate this growing problem.

Jack Straw: Yes, is the answer. It has been a constant problem ensuring that young men, in particular, are not attracted to carrying and then using knives. As the police are pointing out, aside from anything else, those young men become far more vulnerable to attacks by other youths who are carrying knives. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have begun a knife amnesty. It is relatively successful, but all of us, in all parts of the House, in support of the police and community organisations, must keep up the battle to persuade those young men, principally, not to carry knives and never to use them.

David Winnick: If we are to have a debate on the Home Office, would it not be useful to examine carefully the role of the most senior civil servants previously and to some extent now? Is it not about time that politicians stopped covering up for those who have demonstrated sheer incompetence in their jobs?

Jack Straw: The system we have in this country is that Ministers take responsibility for their Departments. At any one time there will be some officials who are performing well and some who are perhaps performing not as well. In my experience of nine years in government, both the home civil service and the foreign service do extremely well, often in difficult circumstances. The fundamental problem with the Home Office, which distinguishes it from any other Government Department, is not the quality of the staff, but the nature of the individuals whom the Home Office must deal with. In every other area of Government activity, local or national, those who are the customers, so to speak, of the Department—schoolchildren, parents, patients—are on the whole willing volunteers, but the last thing the customers of the Home Office are is willing volunteers. Many of them are dysfunctional individuals—criminals, asylum seekers, people who do not wish to be subject to social control, the purpose of the Home Office. It is that which places the burden on the staff and provides a challenge to both staff and Ministers. But we have no proposals to shift from a fundamental aspect of the way we run Government, which is that it is Ministers who are responsible for their Departments.

Bob Spink: May we have a debate on maintaining the integrity of our precious electoral process and democracy? In the debate we could expose and seek to prevent sinister abuses of the system, such as those investigated by James Redgrave, the excellent  Essex Enquirer reporter, which are soon to be considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions?

Jack Straw: I am afraid that I cannot comment on individual investigations, but the Electoral Administration Bill is currently going through Parliament and is intended to tighten controls on electoral administration and to counter fraud.

Anne Moffat: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the latest findings in Scotland about the smoking ban? It has not reduced trade in public houses. Will he assure me that there will be a ban in the House, with no exceptions, including in the Members' Smoking Room?

Jack Straw: That is a matter for the House to decide. As someone who was rather sceptical about the bans, I find the evidence in Scotland interesting and significant.

Maria Miller: May I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) in calling for a debate on community health services? The Leader of the House's reply only emphasised the need for such a debate. The Government's strategy is to shift the delivery of patient care from hospitals to our communities, yet only last week, the British Medical Association issued a report that stated that three out of every four GPs feel that their surgeries are not big enough to tackle future demand. We need an urgent debate in Government time to ensure that the Government's strategy matches what the NHS delivers on the ground.

Jack Straw: The NHS is delivering in the hon. Lady's area. In the Hampshire and Isle of Wight health authority area, there are nearly 3,000 more nurses, more than 1,000 extra doctors and 382 more consultants. That is making a genuine difference to patients. I wish that Opposition Members would praise the work of additional staff and its effect on patient care.

Keith Vaz: I support the calls from Members of all parties for a debate or statement on the operation of the Home Office. The Home Secretary's statements to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and his assessment of his Department were devastating. I appreciate that, when my right hon. Friend was Home Secretary, he started the reform process, but a major problem remains with the way in which the Home Office operates. The latest allegations of sex for visas are serious. Like my right hon. Friend in Blackburn, I will go to my surgery in Leicester on Friday and there will be many cases of constituents complaining about the Home Office. The matter is not for an Adjournment debate but for the Floor of the House, where all hon. Members can participate in setting the benchmarks for a more efficient and effective Home Office. May we have such a debate?

Jack Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, which is compiling a report on Home Office administration. It is best for us to await the outcome and the recommendations before deciding about a future debate on the matter.

Roger Williams: The Leader of the House may know that all four Welsh police chief constables now say that the reconfiguration of the police service in Wales cannot take place in the time scale that has been set out. They also say that, if it were carried out in the proposed way, there would be a financial deficit of approximately £60 million year after year. More and more people believe that the proposed model is not right for Wales. Indeed, in the Welsh Grand Committee, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) proposed an alternative model that would tackle some of the concerns of people who want to ensure that local policing remains strong. Will the Leader of the House ensure that everybody gets together on the matter so that we get an affordable and effective solution for Wales?

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is taking time to consider those matters and, of course, taking the advice of the Welsh Assembly and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. However, I note that Mr. Terry Grange, the chief constable of Dyfed-Powys, said to the BBC in December last year:
	"I would ask myself why there are four police forces in Wales... one would probably be the best in all honesty".
	There is therefore a debate in the police service as well as in the community about the future of police services in Wales.

Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. Friend is aware of the work of Derian House children's hospice in Chorley. It is sad that the hospice movement, especially children's hospices, is underfunded. It is unacceptable that the funding crisis continues, with the Government funding only one week in 52. That must change. We need a debate and we must ensure that the hospice movement, especially the children's hospice movement, is properly funded.

Jack Straw: I note my hon. Friend's comments. There is a fine hospice, which is supported by voluntary contributions, in my constituency. I shall pass on his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Edward Leigh: May I join the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) in calling for a debate on the Home Office? At a recent Public Accounts Committee meeting on the Home Office's accounts, we heard that they were in such chaos that the Comptroller and Auditor General could not qualify them but had to disclaim them. In other words, there were no accounts even to consider. The former Home Secretary is wrong to say that the problem is simply one of dealing with dysfunctional people. Home Office procedures and administration are dysfunctional. Although he is right to say that, ultimately, Ministers take responsibility, Sir John Gieve, the former permanent secretary, was in charge and is now deputy Governor of the Bank of England. We need a debate in the House and we must take a serious interest in not only policy but administration.

Jack Straw: Of course, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. If Ministers are to be successful, they must do both. One of the failings of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) when he was Home Secretary was his effort to evade responsibility by claiming that he was responsible only for policy and that others were responsible for operations. The test of a policy is how it operates in practice.
	I accept that there are problems with the Home Office—no one has ever denied that—and there always will be. Administration should be better, but the nature of the tasks that the Home Office undertakes—especially given the extraordinary explosion of movement across borders, the increase in civil wars and so on since the collapse of the Berlin wall and the end of the Soviet empire—means that the pressures are likely to remain and put pressure in turn on all interior Ministries, including the Home Office.
	I note what the hon. Gentleman said about debates and I look forward to the Public Accounts Committee's report as well as that of the Home Affairs Committee on the matter.

Gordon Prentice: Are we getting the most out of official residences? Dorneywood, for example, is open to the public only one week out of 52, and my spies tell me that the Deputy Prime Minister rarely goes there. May we have a statement when we return on the allocation and proper use of ministerial residences?

Jack Straw: There are many ways in which my hon. Friend can raise the matter, but he knows that those residences go with certain jobs. In addition, I understand that they do not cost the public purse anything, or anything significant.

George Young: May we have a debate in Government time before the summer recess on Iraq and Afghanistan, where the position remains difficult? It is some time since we had a proper debate on that subject. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to introduce the debate and the Foreign Secretary to wind it up on the Adjournment so that the Government can take the mood of the House?

Jack Straw: As I have said on other occasions, when I was Foreign Secretary, I sought a debate on those issues, although it would have been opened not by the Prime Minister but by the Foreign Secretary. I am still trying to arrange such a debate. Meanwhile, there is a debate in the second week in June on proceedings before the European Council. Since the European Council will consider Iraq and Afghanistan, that is a good opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to raise his concerns.

Jim Sheridan: May we have a debate about the corrosive impact of elements of the popular press on democracy? My right hon. Friend may know that there is an undercurrent of racism to the popular press's surveys, supported by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, that present Scots as dour, dreary and unfit to hold the most senior position in British politics. That is damaging to our democracy. If another nation or religion were treated in the same way, there would rightly be a public outcry. Even today, one of the most successful British football managers is being criticised for endangering England's World cup hopes. I am sure that Sir Alex Ferguson and I will be the first to offer England our support, with the volume turned down, of course.

Jack Straw: As a true-born Englishman, may I say that I understand my hon. Friend's concern? I hope that the World cup will lead to real ecumenical feeling between the different nations of the United Kingdom. I have always supported Scotland whenever they were playing in a game other than against England, but, as Scotland have a bye on this occasion, I look forward to all Scottish Members on both sides of the House supporting England in the World cup.

Pete Wishart: The right hon. Gentleman is emerging as a truly reforming Leader of the House and I know that he is keen to represent all shades of opinion in the House. Will he therefore have a look at the membership of the Liaison Committee and work to end the exclusion of the minority parties? Even a cursory glance at the arithmetic will show that we are entitled to a place, and it is not good enough simply to say that membership is confined to the Chairs of Committees, because co-option is an easy matter. Will he demonstrate that he truly speaks for the whole House by ending this unfair exclusion?

Jack Straw: Flattered though I am by the hon. Gentleman's compliments, it is probably too early to say, after only three weeks in the job, whether I am going to be a truly reforming Leader of the House. I shall look into the composition of the Liaison Committee, but I cannot promise him the result that he wants.

Brian Iddon: An audit of hepatitis C health care in England was published this week by the all-party group on hepatology, and it shows that diagnosis and treatment of the disease are a matter of chance. An estimated 400,000 people are carrying the disease, the vast majority of whom do not know that they are carriers. That represents a health time bomb. Will my right hon. Friend draw the report to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health? May we also have a statement in the House on the Government's delivery of the hepatitis C strategy and their action plan?

Jack Straw: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he has undertaken with the all-party group on hepatology. I will indeed tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health about this matter. As she is sitting on the Front Bench, that should be straightforward.

Alistair Burt: The Home Office can release and then lose serious offenders from overseas, but the immigration and nationality directorate can find women asylum seekers who have committed no offence, some of whom have been detained for more than a year at the Yarl's Wood detention centre in my constituency without any immediate prospect of deportation. The mental anguish resulting from indefinite detention can only be imagined, and the system was never designed to be used in this way. Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate in Government time on this matter, so that we can determine whether there is a better way of dealing with these almost forgotten women?

Jack Straw: I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter, and it illustrates the complexity of dealing with asylum seekers. In general, people on both sides of the House say that asylum seekers should be sent back as quickly as possible and that their rights should be restricted. However, Members on both sides are assiduous in representing individual cases. The Home Office has to deal with individual cases, rather than with the generality. In my experience, it is very rare for anyone to be detained in a detention centre for as long as 12 months without a very good reason. They are fully entitled to apply for bail, and if there is no good reason for detaining them, bail will be granted.

David Taylor: In the last year for which figures are available, there were 4,159 fires in the home caused by smoking materials. Those fires resulted in 1,416 non-fatal injuries and 123 fatalities. On 13 and 14 June in Brussels, the general product safety directive committee will consider regulations that could lead to a requirement for reduced incineration propensity cigarettes—those that go out unless they are actively being smoked—to be produced in this country. We shall be represented by officials from the Department of Trade and Industry at those meetings. Will the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry make a statement to the House on the attitude his officials will take, and whether he will support my forthcoming early-day motion, to be tabled on the day that we return from the Whitsun recess, or my 10-minute Bill, which I shall present on the third day after the recess?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about this important matter and I will certainly talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about it. If it is possible for him to make a statement, there will be one.

Evan Harris: This morning, the Oxford Radcliffe hospital in my constituency announced 600 job losses, half of which will be compulsory redundancies. The Secretary of State for Health has said that this is the best year that the NHS has ever had and that such developments are a sign of efficient hospitals, but this is a debt-ridden hospital that is being forced to do that. Her remarks have been described as coming from another planet and a parallel universe by people working in the health service. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Health Secretary to come to the House on planet Earth to explain why hospitals up and down the country—including the Oxford Radcliffe—are cutting all these jobs? The cuts will have a huge impact on patient care.

Jack Straw: I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health give an excellent explanation about the problems, which are not affecting anywhere near all the health trusts and authorities. They affect the few trusts that, despite record levels of overall spending, are still spending above those levels and placing pressures on their own health facilities and those of other heath trusts. I greatly regret the fact, as I am sure my right hon. Friend does, that these redundancies have been announced, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are a large number of unfilled vacancies in the Oxford area. I wish that he would tell his constituents about the huge improvements that are still being made in his area, illustrated by the vast improvements in patient care, and by the fact that the number of nurses in that area has increased by 2,700, and the number of doctors by 1,200.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, a year or two ago, the European Scrutiny Committee resolved that its routine meetings should be held in public? That was a modest request, but it was nevertheless ignored by the then Leader of the House, who refused to change the Standing Orders to permit that arrangement, despite the Government's professed commitment to openness and to the public's right to know. Will the new Leader of the House—whom I very much welcome—bolster his reforming credentials by looking more favourably on this request, so that we can blow away the cobwebs of secrecy and allow the public to see what we try to do on their behalf?

Jack Straw: I will certainly look into the right hon. Gentleman's request. When I was Foreign Secretary, I was in the vanguard—along with the then Minister for Europe—of seeking ways to improve the scrutiny of European business by the House. I promise the right hon. Gentleman, and you, Mr. Speaker, that I will look very carefully at the overall recommendations to improve scrutiny by the House.

Julian Lewis: May I appeal to the Leader of the House to secure from the Secretary of State for Health, whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber, a statement on the dangerous decision by the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust to close the emergency centre at the Maudsley hospital? It is one of the few places in the country offering a walk-in service to people suffering a serious psychotic or suicidally depressive episode. It has been said that such people will now have to go to an ordinary accident and emergency unit, which will be potentially lethal for them and distressing for the other people in the unit. Can this be examined as a matter of urgency?

Jack Straw: I am sure that the arrangements being made in respect of the Maudsley hospital are more than adequate to meet the needs of those patients. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said repeatedly to Opposition Members who raise these issues, that, had it not been for our spending plans—which were opposed by every single Conservative Member year after year—none of the improvements in the health service would have taken place.

Desmond Swayne: The Leader of the House will know that the best way to improve scrutiny is through transparency. May I therefore urge him to place on the Order Paper a motion that would enable us to end the scandal of the European Scrutiny Committee sitting in private? That arrangement excludes Members of the House, members of the public and journalists, and it is a scandal for a free Parliament and a free people.

Jack Straw: I am in favour of open scrutiny, and I have already said to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that I want the House's scrutiny of European and other business strengthened. Some Select Committees need to meet in private some of the time, which does not necessarily undermine their scrutiny—it may improve it—but I understand the point that hon. Members are making and I will work on it.

John Hayes: As it is adult learners week, I was going to ask the Leader of the House for a debate on those matters so that we can consider why we lost 150,000 adult learning places last year. Given the right hon. Gentleman's earlier comments, however, I am going to ask for a debate on crime. Gun crime is soaring and knife crime up 36 per cent. on last year, so we need a debate to test the bizarre idea that dysfunctional clients excuse dysfunctional Ministers.

Jack Straw: On places for adult learners, investment in further education, including for adults, has been dramatic. On crime, I am happy at any stage to set our record on fighting crime against the record of the previous Conservative Administration. The simple fact is that in 18 years of Conservative Administration, crime doubled and by 1997 police numbers were going down.

Denis MacShane: Say it again.

Jack Straw: Under 18 years of Conservative Administration, crime doubled and police numbers were going down. Under the Labour Administration, crime has gone down, not up, by 35 per cent. and police numbers have risen by 14,000.

Pensions Reform

John Hutton: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future of our pensions system.
	Our first priority has been to tackle pensioner poverty. Compared with 1997, we are spending more than £10 billion extra each year on pensioners, and almost half that spending goes to the poorest third. We have raised the minimum income from a totally inadequate £69 a week in 1997 to more than £114 today. As a result, for the first time in a generation, pensioners are now less likely to be poor than anyone else.
	We have also tackled the loss of confidence in the private pensions market. We have legislated to clear up the pensions mis-selling scandal, created the pensions regulator and the Pension Protection Fund. We established the financial assistance scheme to help some of those who stood to lose most from schemes that collapsed before 14 May 2004. I know that many Members have been concerned that the scheme is limited to those within three years of retirement.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in March that we were expediting a review of the financial assistance scheme and I am delighted to announce today that it will be extended to cover eligible people who were within 15 years of their scheme's normal retirement age on 14 May 2004. Under that extension, the Government will top up to 80 per cent. of the expected core pension for those within seven years of scheme pension age, to 65 per cent. for those within eight to 11 years of scheme pension age and to 50 per cent. for the remainder.
	We have made real progress on pensioner poverty, but despite those improvements, significant challenges remain. We established the Pensions Commission in 2002 to consider what reforms might be necessary to meet those challenges, and I am grateful to the three commissioners—Lord Turner, Jeannie Drake and John Hills—for the work that they have done. In its report last November, the commission made it clear that there was no immediate "pensions crisis", but that there would be one if we did not act soon. They identified four major challenges.
	First, the Commission found that between 9 million and 12 million people are not saving enough for their retirement. Secondly, it estimated that, by 2050, there would be 50 per cent. more pensioners than today and that the ratio of people in work to those in retirement would halve over the same period. Thirdly, as a result of historical legacy, the current state pension system is complex and delivers unfair outcomes, especially for women and carers. Of those recently reaching state pension age, 85 per cent. of men have a full entitlement to a basic state pension compared with only 30 per cent. of women. Finally, it found that, if we maintain current indexation, the basic state pension might be worth in today's earning terms only £35 by 2050 and that more than 70 per cent. of pensioner households could be eligible for pension credit—never the Government's intention. The Commission urged the Government not to duck the long-term challenge of reform.
	I believe that the proposals in today's White Paper address the challenges that the Pensions Commission identified. We will therefore introduce a new system of personal accounts that will make it easier for more people to save. We will reform state pensions so that they are simpler and more generous. We will modernise the contributory principle and make the state pension fairer and more widely available. We will increase the state pension age, keeping the proportion of life spent receiving the state pension stable for each generation and helping to secure the long-term financial stability and sustainability of the state pension system. Let me take each of those in turn.
	A new system of personal accounts will be introduced from 2012, providing more than 10 million people with the opportunity to save in a low-cost savings vehicle. Employees will be automatically enrolled into either their employer's scheme or in the new personal account, but they will have the right to opt out. The accounts will provide a simple way for people to take personal responsibility for building their retirement income. Employers will be required to contribute 3 per cent. of employee earnings in a band between £5,000 and £33,000. Employees will contribute 4 per cent. on the same band of earnings and a further 1 per cent. will be contributed in tax relief.
	I recognise that these changes represent a major change in our pension system. Accordingly, we are taking steps to help smooth the introduction of reform. Employer contributions will be phased in over at least three years and the contribution rate will be fixed in primary legislation. In order to minimise the burden on the smallest businesses, we will consult on additional transitional support and on whether a longer phasing period is necessary. However, the Government are clear that reforms to private pensions must go hand in hand with reforms to the state pension system.
	During the next Parliament, we will re-link the value of the basic state pension to average earnings. Our objective, subject to affordability and the fiscal position, is to do that in 2012, but in any event by the end of that Parliament at the latest. We will make a statement on the precise date at the beginning of the next Parliament. That will help to preserve the value of the basic state pension. We will also simplify the state second pension so that it gradually becomes a flat-rate weekly top-up to the basic state pension.
	That means that a person retiring in around 2050 who has been in employment or caring throughout their working life could receive a contributory state pension worth £135 a week in today's earnings terms, which would be £20 a week above the guaranteed income level. Without those reforms, people retiring in 2050 would receive a total contributory state pension worth between £90 and £100 a week—well below the means-tested threshold.
	We will continue to uprate the standard guarantee in the pension credit with average earnings from 2008, so the pension credit will continue to help the poorest pensioners, but we will also be able to limit the spread of means-testing. We will make an immediate start by modifying the calculation of the savings credit from 2008. That gives a clear indication from the outset of our determination to make clear people's incentives to save. As a result of that change and our restoration of the earnings link, we estimate that, by 2050, far from rising to 70 per cent., only about a third of pensioners will be eligible for pension credit.
	Our reforms to the state pension must also achieve fairer outcomes for women and carers, but we do not believe that a residency test for future accruals, as proposed by the Pensions Commission, would be the right way to achieve that. It would offer no immediate help to a group of women aged 45 and above who have poor contribution records and, quite literally, no time now to put it right. That is why, from 2010, we will introduce radical changes to the current system, reducing the number of years needed to qualify for the basic state pension to 30 and improving the system of credits to better reflect the different ways in which people contribute to society. As a result, by 2010, 70 per cent. of women reaching the state pension age will receive a full basic state pension, compared with 30 per cent. today. By 2020, up to 270,000 more women will get a full basic state pension—approximately three times the number under a residency-based approach.
	We propose to increase the state pension age in line with life expectancy. The state pension age for women is already due to rise from 60 to 65 between 2010 and 2020, to equalise with men's state pension age. There will be a subsequent rise for both men and women from 65 to 66 over a two-year period beginning in 2024, and further increases—also over two years—to 67, starting from 2034, and to 68 from 2044. However, no one over the age of 47 today will be affected by these changes.
	Finally, today's White Paper proposes a number of simplifying measures that will streamline the regulatory environment. We will abolish contracting out for defined contribution schemes at the same time as we restore the earnings link. We will reduce the burdens on schemes by introducing legislation to allow them to convert guaranteed minimum pension rights into scheme benefits—reforms that will, I believe, be of significant benefit to employers and employees. We will introduce legislation to begin implementing these reforms in the next session.
	In November, I set out five tests for the reform of our pensions system: they needed to promote personal responsibility and to be fair, especially to women and careers, and they needed to be simple to understand, affordable and sustainable for the long term. I believe that we have met those five tests.
	Today's White Paper seeks to entrench a new pensions savings culture, whereby future generations can take increasing personal responsibility for building their retirement savings. While there will always be specific individual circumstances, such as debt or stock market performance, that affect people's savings, fundamentally these reforms mean that people should be better off in retirement by having saved. Moreover, this package of reforms continues to protect the poorest pensioners from poverty and, for the first time, delivers fair outcomes for women and carers with a modernised contributory principle, operating within a simpler overall architecture.
	Over the period to 2020, our proposals broadly keep spending on pensioners as a proportion of national income constant at today's levels, thus helping pensioners to share in rising national prosperity. In the long term, the rise in the state pension age will help to secure the long-term financial stability and sustainability of the state pension system. Altogether, this represents a comprehensive integrated package of reform. I believe that it can lay the foundation for a new and lasting consensus on a long-term solution of the pensions challenge that we face as a country. I commend the White Paper to the House.

Philip Hammond: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the safe delivery of his White Paper to the House. Frankly, there have been times over the past couple of months when we were not sure that it would see the light of day. We welcome the key elements of the package that he has just announced. The Conservative party fought the last election on a platform of a restoration of the earnings link to curb the growth of means-testing—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] We fought the last election on a platform of a restoration of the earnings link to curb the growth of means-testing—something that the Chancellor said at the time was unaffordable.
	We also welcome the package of measures that will address the unfairness suffered by women in the present system, but let us just take a moment to set the statement in context:
	"when Labour came to power we had one of the strongest pension provisions in Europe and now probably we have some of the weakest."
	Of course, those are not my words but those of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—Labour's first Minister for Welfare Reform.
	Since 1997 the savings ratio has halved, and 9 million people in this country are not saving enough for their retirement. Some 60,000 occupational pension schemes, with more than 1 million members between them, have wound up or begun the process of winding up on Labour's watch. At least 125,000 people have lost some or all of their accrued pensions rights. Not all of that is the Government's fault—[Hon. Members: "Oh?"]—but the Chancellor's £5 billion a year tax raid on pension funds, the two reductions in the minimum funding requirement, the ever more complex regulatory regime and the pernicious affect of widespread means-testing on the savings culture are matters for which this Government are responsible, and that is the context of the statement today.
	I should like to join the Secretary of State's tribute to the work that the Pensions Commission has done. We do not agree with every detail of the commission's proposals, but the key recommendations of its report clearly point the way forward. Cross-party consensus is essential to a lasting pensions settlement. Long-term savers want long-term stability, which needs a guarantee that the pension regime will not change every time there is a general election. So it is bad news for Britain that the consensus building that the Government promised us on the back of the Turner report has been a victim of the internecine warfare between the neighbours in Downing street.
	It is bad news, too, that a degree of uncertainty has now been inserted in the equation by the Chancellor's insistence on the caveat that the restoration of the earnings link in 2012 is subject to some subjective tests of affordability. The start date for the restoration of the earnings link is pushed back into the next but one spending review—the fiscal equivalent of the long grass—and is subject to a get-out clause that reduces the very certainty about state benefits that was the cornerstone of the reform package that the White Paper was supposed to deliver. The Prime Minister's legacy is left to a decision that will not even be taken until the next Parliament. No wonder the Government are now so keen to build that cross-party consensus to which they have devoted no time over the past few months.
	We have set out our own five criteria by which we will judge the White Paper; they largely reflect the criteria that the Secretary of State has set out. Does it deliver pensioner dignity? Does it deliver fairness, not just between the generations and the sexes, but between different groups in society? Is it affordable?  [ Interruption. ] Is it simple enough for people to understand? Perhaps most importantly of all, does it underpin self-reliance through the promotion of saving?  [ Interruption. ] I am glad that the Chancellor is having such a good time this afternoon.
	On the basis of what the Secretary of State said and an initial trawl through the White Paper, we have a number of detailed concerns, which I will address—but first I want to say something about affordability. We share the Government's determination that the proposed settlement must be affordable and sustainable. No party that seriously aspires to be in government when these changes take effect can take any risk with the public finances or the stability of the economy.
	Conservative Members will certainly not make promises that we cannot deliver, but if there is to be an affordability test, there must be transparency about the cost and the financing of the package of measures in the White Paper. Without transparency, affordability will remain a matter for the Chancellor's subjective judgment. Given the challenge of longevity, change is essential, and I believe that the British people will be willing to shoulder the burden of change, provided that it is fairly distributed—but if change is not seen to be fair, it will not be durable.
	This package will improve the situation of women with broken contribution records and those who have committed time to caring responsibilities—we very much welcome that—but is it fair that a woman who retires one day before the changes take effect should spend the rest of her life living on a partial basic state pension, while her neighbour who retires a month later with the same contribution record will have a full basic state pension? Is it fair that tucked away in the small print is a provision that will freeze the maximum state second pension at today's level, but will not freeze the contributions that people pay towards that pension? That issue has been neither properly understood nor properly debated.
	The Secretary of State has said nothing at all about public sector pensions. Can the Government really look the British public in the eye and tell them they have to work until they are 68 to gain their basic state pension rights, when the Government have cravenly surrendered to pressure from public sector unions and agreed to their demands for retirement at the age of 60 on a full final salary indexed pension for the next40 years?
	Public sector workers deserve fair treatment, just as everybody else does, but median public sector pay is now higher than private sector pay and growing faster, and public sector workers are benefiting from the increase in life expectancy. They, too, must share in shouldering the burden of adjustment. In the interests of fairness, the Government must reopen the public sector pensions debate. We cannot be bound by a deal based on favours, not fairness.
	The acid test of this package is the extent to which it promotes saving. The proposals that we have heard about today will halt the growth of means-testing, but only after another six years of expansion. It is far from clear to us that, with 30 to 45 per cent. of the pensioner population remaining within means-tested benefits, savings behaviour will change, as is required to deliver the Government's objectives.
	There is also a huge concern that the introduction of the auto-enrolled state-sponsored scheme along the lines of the national pension savings scheme, together with the abolition of contracted-out rebates, will be the death knell of many more generous occupational pension schemes. I hope that the Secretary of State can confirm that the Government are committed to a review of the regulations around occupational schemes that will support them and make them less onerous for employers to develop.
	We will support the NPSS proposal, including the proposed compulsory employer contributions, because we believe that that will help to ensure that saving pays, but we need to hear the Secretary of State say very clearly that that cannot be at the expense of Britain's economic competitiveness, and that as employers pay those contributions on behalf of their employees over time, that will be reflected in slightly lower pay increases, as remuneration is transferred from cash wages to pension contributions. That is essential to ensuring the affordability of those proposals.
	Finally, I want to refer to the Secretary of State's announcement on the financial assistance scheme. We welcome the broadening of the eligibility criteria, although there is no indication of the cost of that or of how it will be funded.
	Will the Secretary of State also tell the House what he will do to ensure that the financial assistance scheme works more effectively? In its first year, it has managed to pay out less than £127,000 to fewer than 50 beneficiaries while spending more than £5 million on administration. This is a question not just of broadening the criteria or of pouring extra money in, but of reforming the system to make it work more effectively.
	The White Paper has been long awaited and will be widely welcomed. Whatever our separate party political motivations, it is now our duty as elected representatives—all of us here—to do what is right for the long-term interests of Britain. In this case, that involves building that cross-party consensus, however late in the day it is to start that process. We are willing to engage in that process, if the Government are now, at last, willing to do so with us.

John Hutton: I think I can assume from that that the hon. Gentleman generally supports the reforms that we are making through the White Paper; I genuinely welcome that, by the way. His point about consensus is well made, and we certainly intend to establish and maintain the widest and deepest consensus that we can. However, an important part of that has to be a grown-up approach to affordability issues. He cannot just brush those away, as he did by suggesting at the beginning of his remarks that affordability is not an issue. It is absolutely fundamental.
	May I correct the hon. Gentleman on one or two things that he said that are not right? I have only a few minutes, so I shall try to keep to the point. He said that means-testing would be extended over the next six years. That is not true. He will have the opportunity in due course to look more carefully at the White Paper, and he will see that the changes we are making to the savings credit fix will prevent that from happening.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the administration of the financial assistance scheme needs to be improved, and we will set out how we intend to do that. His remarks on public sector pensions reflect two problems that he has. We all remember the Conservative party saying before the election that it had no plans at all to change any aspect of public sector pensions. Now, with the election behind him, he is waving his plans to change the pension schemes of the nurses, the teachers, the doctors and the local government workers. People will draw their own conclusions about his consistency in doing that.
	More fundamentally, the hon. Gentleman is confusing occupational pension age with the state pension age. It is simply not true that people in the public sector will have the benefit and advantage that he claims.
	In general, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for our proposals, but I would be remiss if I did not, finally, correct some of his description of the record. He described the pensions system as being pretty well perfect when his party left office and we took office. I do not think that that is what many pensioners would say. There was no help for the poorest pensioners, and there was pension mis-selling on a scandalous scale. There was no scheme protection at all for people whose pension schemes collapsed. Anyone who thinks that is a credible record does not understand the reality of pensions policy.

Frank Field: I congratulate the Secretary of State on trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear. I draw his attention to the extraordinary support for that part of his statement in which he announced that those on the Government side of the House want to give much greater justice to women working than they have hitherto received. However, can he help me with one problem that I have, given that he has rejected an investment-led and accepted a tax-financed approach?
	Four years ago, the then Secretary of State sent us back to our constituencies to sell to our constituents the idea that the state second pension would not only eradicate poverty as we knew it, but would last their lifetime. Today this Secretary of State has, in effect, announced the winding up of the state second pension as we know it. Why will these tax-financed reforms last for even four years?

John Hutton: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend— [Laughter.] I thank him for welcoming those parts of the White Paper that he agrees with—but I have to make something clear to him, and to others, in relation to the state second pension. We had always signalled our intention that over the long term, we would move to a flat rating by 2050. Lord Turner, having considered those issues, has concluded that we should be looking to do that on a faster time track.
	I simply say to my right hon. Friend that he needs to consider the two reforms together—the restoration of the earnings link for the basic state pension and the changes we are making to the state second pension. Overall, this is a beneficial sequence of changes that will benefit pensioners in their retirement. I set out the figures on that in my statement.

David Laws: I start by adding our congratulations to Lord Turner and his fellow commissioners on what is clearly an influential report on pensions. I also congratulate the Secretary of State, as well as his team and his officials, on introducing the White Paper according to the timetable that was initially indicated, which some of us might have felt would be difficult, particularly in the light of the divisions in the Government on the issue.
	I also congratulate the Secretary of State on appearing to have brought the Chancellor of the Exchequer on board for the pensions solution. Indeed, the Chancellor was even seen smiling on the Front Bench earlier. Whether that is because he feels that he is now in a position to take credit for the proposals, or whether he feels that he has succeeded in burying some of them, we shall find out over time.
	The Secretary of State knows from our earlier discussions that there is a great deal in his White Paper that we welcome and agree with, and that we believe fundamentally that the direction he is taking on pensions reform is the right one. However, he also knows that we have a major concern that the pensions architecture that he is building rests on the sandy and insecure foundation of a basic pension system—a state pension system—that will still rely hugely on means-testing, have a very low basic state pension and therefore raise issues of complexity and disincentive to save.
	We have indicated to the Secretary of State that we are in favour of the proposal to restore the earnings link, that we have broad support for the NPSS and that we also accept the increase in the state pension age in order to fund a lot of those improvements. However, I want to discuss some of our fundamental concerns about today's statement, starting with what appears to be a Gordon Brown get-out clause in relation to when the link to earnings will come in.
	The Secretary of State has given the impression today that he is signing up to Lord Turner's proposals. In fact, he is bringing forward by five years the proposals to increase the state pension age, therefore saving money, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be moving back by between two and five years the date when pensioners will see some benefit from the earnings link. Why is there the issue of an affordability test, when the cost of the proposals is clear? Why is it stated on page 110 of the White Paper that the earnings link and higher state pension age should be "inextricably linked", when it is now clear that although the Secretary of State proposes to increase the state pension age, he is vague about when the earnings link will be introduced? He says that there will be a decision on that at the beginning of the next Parliament, if his party is still in power. Can he indicate what "beginning" means? Does it mean within the first Budget or within the first year? Does he accept that in bringing forward the state pension age and delaying the earnings link, he is short-changing the pensioners who will be interested in this statement?
	On the earnings link, will the Secretary of State also comment on the position of the 1 million pensioners who live abroad, some of whom do not even receive a price link at present in relation to the state pension? Will he confirm whether the earnings link will be extended to pensioners abroad, including those who do not benefit at present?
	Does the Secretary of State accept that he was wrong to describe the basic pension that he will deliver as in any way generous? If the earnings link is delayed until 2015, as it could be, does he accept that the average pensioner today would be just £2 better off than with a price link? In other words, does he accept that the settlement does little for today's generation of pensioners? Does he also accept that although he has succeeded in capping the degree of means-testing in the system, he is still reliant on a system in which, even if his figures are accurate, one third of pensioners will be subject to means-testing? How will that affect the incentives for people whom he hopes will enter the national pension savings scheme?
	Will he also indicate why he has not accepted— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are complicated matters, and the House should listen courteously to the Member addressing the House.

David Laws: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These are important issues, and we are entitled to ask the Secretary of State for answers.
	Why has the Secretary of State rejected Lord Turner's proposal to have a permanent standing commission on pensions and to consider those issues on an ongoing basis? Why does he suggest instead that there should simply be periodic reviews? Can he also return to the issue of public sector pensions and tell us whether the Government will at some stage set up a similar Turner-type review to consider the reform of public sector pensions?
	As we consider proposals for legislation, we also want to find as much cross-party consensus as possible. We have accepted major parts of today's White Paper and the direction of travel. We are of the view, however, that the Government are only delivering half solution today, because of the inadequate nature of the basic pension system on which it will be built. We therefore fear that it will not be the final settled pensions solution that all of us have sought.

John Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I fundamentally reject his analysis that this is anything other than a comprehensive and integrated series of reforms, which will benefit pensioners. Let me respond to some of his points.
	The hon. Gentleman was concerned about the spread of means-testing, and so are we. That is why I have announced these reforms, which will see means-testing fall considerably. He has mentioned the figure of a third, and it will be about a third. However, we expect only 6 per cent. of pensioners who are being means-tested in 2050 to be in receipt of the guarantee credit. The remainder will receive the savings credit, which, as he knows, is designed to reward savings. That is a good outcome, not a bad one. I ask him to reflect on that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about increases in the state pension age. I need to remind him that those increases will not take place before 2024, and we intend to introduce the earnings link by 2012. There is therefore no question whatever of the link being broken as he suggested. We are absolutely not short-changing today's pensioners. This is a comprehensive, full and positive endorsement of Lord Turner's report, and we have responded in a way that, as he said at the beginning of his remarks, he did not expect us to. Having heard him, however, I am delighted that we responded as we did. I do not want to set up another quango, which is why I have decided not to set up a pensions commission as Lord Turner recommended.
	As for public sector pensions, let me remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that several negotiations are taking place now, scheme by scheme, to change the terms of those schemes. It is right to change those terms, and the negotiations will continue.
	I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I am surprised that he did not refer more positively to his proposals, which, as I understand it, would cost the taxpayer an extra £11 billion in 2010, rising to £16 billion in 2015 and £90 billion in 2050.

Terry Rooney: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the comprehensive reform package that he has brought forward today. Can he confirm that he will not abolish the new deal to finance the earnings link, and that that link will not last for only four years? More seriously, getting a consensus in the House should be fairly easy, but we have had consensus in the past, and it lasted about three years—so it is much more important to get a consensus among the general public. What education and promotion programme does he envisage to get all the messages across to the general public?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us that the Conservative party's policy at the general election was to pay for the restoration of the earnings link by scrapping the new deal, thereby making it harder for younger people to get jobs. That is not the right way to build a sustainable affordable package for long-term pensions reform. That is why we have eschewed that approach.
	My hon. Friend is right to talk about the need for consensus building. Now that the proposals have been made, and we have broadly received a welcome from the Opposition parties, which we very much appreciate, Ministers have a responsibility, which we would be happy to undertake with the Opposition parties, to take the message around the country about the importance of the reforms and how good they will be for pensioners in the long term. I look forward to the support of the two Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen in doing so.

John Butterfill: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on a thoughtful package of proposals. I want to ask some questions about it, but the all-party group that I chair will welcome pretty well everything that he has put forward.
	In relation to the national pension savings scheme, to what extent does the Secretary of State envisage the participation of the private sector in its implementation? Alternatively, will it be entirely a state enterprise? In relation to tax relief, he said in his statement that there will be a 1 per cent. tax relief contribution. Who will get that tax relief? Do employers get any tax relief? How does the tax relief structure work within the system? That is an interesting point for all of us.
	I also welcome the principle of the return to a link with earnings, which is perhaps long overdue. I am concerned, however, that it will take so long. The way in which society treats its elderly always involves an intergenerational transfer. My problem is that, for example, those who fought in the last war and created the conditions and freedoms that we enjoy today will be in their 90s before the earnings link is reintroduced, and many who grew up in the post-war austerity period will be in their 80s. Is it not possible to bring forward that reintroduction a little, as Lord Turner recommended?
	It seems to me that there are a number of ways in which that could be done—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has probably said enough for the time being.

John Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support, and I appreciate the work that he does in the House for pensioners. He asked several specific questions about the restoration of the earnings link. We aim to restore it in 2012, and that is partly a decision about affordability, but is also linked to the creation of the national pension savings scheme and low-cost personal accounts at that time. It is important to introduce those reforms together, which is why we propose 2012. The national pension savings scheme and the personal accounts will be run by private-sector providers.
	Let me make it absolutely clear that the Government are not nationalising the pension savings industry, and have no intention of doing so. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are complicated matters, and the Front-Bench spokesmen understandably took quite a long time to ask their questions. A good many hon. Members are attempting to catch my eye. I ask for one brief question from each Member, and the briefest possible answers from the Secretary of State. If need be, I may interrupt Members if they go on for too long.

Denis MacShane: I welcome my right hon. Friend's package, especially his action in reducing the shadow of the means test, which has stalked pensions for too long. Will he also think again about the financial assistance scheme? Although he has gone some way towards meeting the concerns of the 85,000 steel engineering and other workers whose case is before the European Court of Justice, he has not gone all the way, and we do not want a ruling from the ECJ that would turn his hand. May I invite him to continue to consult on and consider that sensitive issue as he examines the White Paper further and implements its proposals? A great many people feel that their pensions were stolen from them.

John Hutton: We will certainly do that. I think that what we have announced constitutes a significant extension of the financial assistance scheme. I was asked earlier about the cost: it will be an additional£2 billion.

Nicholas Winterton: May I ask a direct question about the state second pension? There has already been a certain amount of publicity and comment in the broadsheets following leaks of the Secretary of State's announcement today. Is it true that anyone earning more than a reasonable salary who is contributing to the state second pension, whether directly to the scheme run by the Government or to a private scheme if they have contracted out, will receive no benefit whatever from that contribution?

John Hutton: That is certainly not the case, as Lord Turner has made clear. We must take into account not just reforms of the state second pension, but the impact of the restoration of the earnings link to the basic state pension. People will be better off as a result of our combined reforms.

Jim Cousins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. I hope he will not mind my spoiling the consensus by saying that it is not necessary to look at the small print of what he said to see that it has Labour origins and a Labour direction, which comes as a relief in these troubled times.
	I hope there will be no attempt to cherry-pick Turner so that the personal savings scheme starts in 2012 and the earnings link does not. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the two dates will be coupled, and that the start of the personal savings scheme and the restoration of the earnings link will constitute a single package?

John Hutton: Yes.

Charles Walker: I welcome much of what the Secretary of State has said. He is aware that many people with quite small pensions are still paying income tax. Has he considered raising the threshold at which pensioners start to pay income tax?

John Hutton: We have done that already, and those are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Alun Michael: I warmly welcome the statement, and everything that my right hon. Friend has said. May I ask specifically about the help that he will give to, for instance, the workers at Allied Steel and Wire—whose headquarters were in my constituency—who lost their pensions when the company collapsed?
	I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor for listening to the representations made by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt), by me and by others, and for giving such a major boost to the financial assistance scheme. Will he tell me how individuals will learn about their specific circumstances, so that they can be certain about their futures: must they apply, or will they be approached by the Department?

John Hutton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support, and pay tribute to the work done by him and others in highlighting the predicament in which many pensioners found themselves when their insolvent employers' pension schemes collapsed. I am truly grateful for the work he has done.
	My right hon. Friend's constituents need do nothing. They will be informed of their entitlement under the new arrangements. As I said earlier, I think that we need to improve the operation of the financial assistance scheme, and we will present proposals on that shortly.

Greg Clark: The Secretary of State has made it clear that the earnings link will be restored in 2012, subject to affordability and the fiscal position. We understand that that has been agreed with the Treasury. As he will know, the Treasury green book contains a section on projects with uncertain outcomes, which advises Ministers and officials to attach probabilities to each of the likely scenarios. Assuming that he has followed the Treasury guidance, may I ask what probability he has attached to the earnings link not being restored in 2012?

John Hutton: This is not a project with an uncertain outcome.

Anne Begg: I was interested to hear what the Secretary of State had to say about women and pensions, and I think that many women will be very happy about it. He mentioned a reduction in the time for which contributions must be made to 30 years. He also said that it might be easier for some women, and carers, to accrue national insurance credits. Will he give us a little more detail about those changes?

John Hutton: We will change the way in which carers' contributions accrue for pension entitlement under both the basic state pension and the state second pension. We will make it easier for carers to earn a state second pension credit. The entitlement that currently applies to those looking after a child under six will be extended to those looking after a child under 12. As for carer's credit, on which we intend to consult, we want to extend basic state pension credits to those caring for more than one person if the time spent on that combined caring totals 20 hours at week. At present, the total must be more than 30 hours a week.

Mark Pritchard: Given that employers can opt out of the personal accounts, what projections has the Department made about those who might opt out, and what if the projections are wrong?

John Hutton: We think that many millions of people will save under the NPSS, which will provide a welcome boost to the savings culture. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.
	It is difficult to estimate the number of people who might opt out in the future. We think as many as a third of eligible employees might want to opt out of the low-cost personal accounts that we are introducing. We are making it clear today that that must be a personal choice. It would be wrong—and Turner rejected the idea—to compel every employee to participate in the new personal accounts, irrespective of personal circumstances. For that obvious reason, we decided not to do so.

Ashok Kumar: May I praise the Secretary of State for a courageous and forward-looking statement? How many of the Texon UK workers in my constituency will be able to benefit from the financial assistance scheme? I urge him to be proactive: a number of those workers may not be aware of the changes that he is introducing.

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I do not know the precise figures relating to the financial assistance scheme, but I will find out. I can reassure him that it is our responsibility in the Department to ensure that scheme members who might be eligible for the additional support are notified. If he has any worries about how that is proceeding, he should come and see me.

Vincent Cable: Will the Secretary of State investigate an alarming practice involving occupational pensions? Overseas companies, such as Parsons Engineering and EMC Engineering in the United States, are effectively defrauding their British pensioners by contriving an arrangement whereby they temporarily liquidate a British subsidiary, expunge their pension liabilities, offload them on to the British taxpayer and resume normal business, including the winning of large Government contracts.

John Hutton: I should be happy to look into that if the hon. Gentleman would like to come and see me.

Natascha Engel: I know that means-testing pensioners has been unpopular with some, but the truth is that pension credit has lifted millions of older people out of poverty. What is the future of pension credit, and how will my right hon. Friend's announcement today ensure that there is no pensioner poverty trap tomorrow?

John Hutton: We are making it clear that there will be a continuing role for targeted financial support for the poorest pensioners. One obvious reason is that many women, in particular, have not accrued a full entitlement to the basic state pension. They will be in the pensions system for many decades, and we have no intention of withdrawing any of their financial support. I think it right, in the short, the medium and the long term, for us to adopt sensible measures to restrict the spread of means-testing. By definition, ours must always be a targeted approach, and I hope and believe that the measures we have announced today will go a long way towards dealing with my hon. Friend's concerns.

Nigel Dodds: I, too, welcome the changes to the financial assistance scheme. Workers in my constituency at the Richardson's IFI plant have been treated shabbily and are devastated; I hope that these changes will help to improve the situation. Is the decision to uprate the pension credit in line with earnings from 2008 subject to an affordability test?

John Hutton: The decision to uprate the pension credit from 2008 in line with earnings is an affordable decision and we are committed to it.

John McFall: I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the Treasury Committee report on this issue, published this week, which was unanimous. May I remind him that the national pension savings scheme will be successful only if regulation is kept at a minimum? Simplicity is the key word and if we can achieve that, we will have a realistic chance of achieving the 30 basis-point annual management charge that Lord Turner envisaged. More money will thus go into the pension pots of workers, instead of the pockets of the financial institutions, enabling them to get the maximum amount at the end of their working life.

John Hutton: I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend and I congratulate him and his Committee on a very good report. The point to which he has drawn our attention is fundamental. If we can get anywhere near the 30, 40 or 50 basis points that Lord Turner has suggested might be possible under the personal account scheme, that will improve the value of people's savings by as much as 20 or 30 per cent., which will be a major boost to those on low and middle incomes in particular.

Hywel Williams: Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party welcome the improvements to the position of women and the restoration of the link with earnings, but we regret that that is at the cost of establishing a citizen's pension, which is our favoured route. Will continuing with the means test not guarantee that a proportion—albeit small—of pensioners will remain in poverty, particularly in Scotland and Wales?

John Hutton: I do not think so. For reasons that I have tried to spell out and that I do not want to repeat, it is absolutely essential to maintain additional targeted financial support for the poorest pensioners; to do anything else would be quite wrong. The hon. Gentleman's preferred solution—the citizen's pension—would cost the taxpayer an immediate £10 billion in 2010. Unless and until he and his hon. Friends can come up with a way of financing that proposal, we should treat it with a very large dose of salt.

Derek Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for the courtesy that he and his predecessors have extended in the past four years regarding the financial assistance scheme, and for increasing it from £400 million to £2 billion—an astonishing sum. He has said today that he will look again at those who do not yet qualify who will be aged under 50. Can he tell us what percentages of people above and below the age of 50 will qualify for the FAS?

John Hutton: That will depend largely on whether such people meet the FAS eligibility conditions, which we are not changing today, so I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact figure. However, he has played a very significant role in getting Ministers to look again at this issue, and I thank him for his encouragement and support.

Justine Greening: Given that one of the main drivers for reform is the decline in the dependency ratio over forthcoming decades, why did the Government opt for the tax-funded proposal outlined today, rather than an investment-funded one? Was such a proposal considered, and, if so, why was it thought less preferable than the one outlined today?

John Hutton: We have broadly followed Lord Turner's analysis and recommendations. He looked at that proposal and rejected it, and so have we.

Diana Johnson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the White Paper. I was particularly interested to hear about provisions dealing with the inequality experienced by women and carers, but I have a remaining concern: the need to persuade young people to save for their future and to provide them with information on saving. How can we prevent them from opting out of a national pension savings scheme?

John Hutton: This is a very interesting area on which, if I am being honest with my hon. Friend, we need to do more work. The Government take seriously the question of improving knowledge of pension and financial issues generally. Now that we have the road map for the future on pension reform, we need to explore every potential avenue. I spent part of the morning at Merrill Lynch—an example of a very large City financial institution that is collaborating with local schools to improve financial capability and knowledge. We need more of that, and we would be happy to support it.

John Greenway: Who will be responsible for the clarity of the explanatory leaflets for personal accounts, given that no advice is to be provided, because of the low cost to which the right hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Mr. McFall) referred? Indeed, I greatly share his concern about that issue. What will the Secretary of State's strategy be to ensure that employers, who currently contribute rather more than 4 per cent. to their employees' pensions, will not use this as an opportunity to reduce their costs and, therefore, provision?

John Hutton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that latter point, and we will have to look very carefully at this issue as we introduce the reforms. When he has a chance to look at the White Paper—I realise that copies have only just been placed in the Vote Office—he will see that we want to continue to talk to people about these matters in more detail, given that we now have a longer time in front of us to prepare the legislation. Indeed, I suspect that the proposal will come before the House later than the second Session. If the hon. Gentleman is willing to work with us on this issue, I would welcome that. The question of leaflets will have to be considered in greater detail over the next few years, but my current thinking is that such a responsibility will rest with the national pension savings scheme, which will oversee such arrangements. But it is obviously very important, in the light of everything that has happened recently, that we learn the lessons of the last few years and do not repeat the mistakes.

Ian Lucas: I warmly welcome the restoration by a Labour Government of the earnings link, which was so cruelly taken away by the Conservatives. Will transitional arrangements be put in place for women such as my mother, who are not eligible for the full state pension and would like to have the benefits of the proposed improved scheme?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I obviously do not know the details of his mother's circumstances, but I very much hope that she will benefit from the restoration of the earnings link and from the other reforms that we are making. Reforms to the contributory principle will take effect from 2010, and I am afraid that if my hon. Friend's mother has reached retirement age by then—I suspect that she might have—she will not benefit, sadly, from that proposal.

Bob Spink: Will the Treasury consider ways of assisting small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, in meeting their 3 per cent. contribution to the new pensions; and how can we ensure that that contribution will not be increased in future, as another stealth tax?

John Hutton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. We have made it clear today that, as the White Paper spells out, the 3 per cent. employer contribution will be fixed in the legislation that we will introduce in the next Session. It will be up to subsequent Governments to change that, if they want to, but to do so they would have to come to this House to seek primary legislation. The White Paper makes it clear that we intend to consult soon on a series of transitional support measures that might be necessary to help employers with the introduction of the employer contribution. We hope to get that document out soon.

Kelvin Hopkins: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today, representing as it does the breaking of a logjam in pensions policy. But will he not go a little further in doing something to help today's pensioners now? May I suggest that he give serious consideration to raising the basic state pension fairly rapidly toward the point that it would have reached had the Tories not broken the earnings link? If it is a question of affordability, I should point out that, if we can afford to subsidise the savings of the rich to the tune of tens of billions of pounds every year, surely this is affordable.

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support, which is important to me. It is worth pointing out one fact. We are spending £11 billion more this year on pensioners compared with 1997, which is£8 billion more than an earnings link would have delivered. The Government have delivered on a very positive agenda for pensioners. This statement, however, is about long-term pension reform. Such reforms will start in 2010 and accelerate in the following decade. The decisions that we take today on improving pensioners' standards of living are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Desmond Swayne: What comfort can APW workers take from this statement, who were excluded from the terms of the financial assistance scheme because of the responsible decisions that properly had to be taken by their trustees?

John Hutton: I am very familiar with that scheme; indeed, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have also raised this issue with me. Today, we are confirming an extension of the financial assistance scheme for eligible employees, but of course, in order for them to qualify for it, the employer needs to have been insolvent. We have not found a way to resolve the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, but we stand ready to continue to consider them in the weeks and months ahead.

Lyn Brown: Can my right hon. Friend tell me what ages children will need to be to qualify their parent or carer for the weekly credit for child care?

John Hutton: I think that the answer is 12.

Edward Leigh: It is easy for politicians to make promises today that have to be paid for by electors tomorrow. Does the Secretary of State think that it is important that the younger generation be reminded about how much these proposals will cost? Assuming that they are introduced in 2012, what will be the cumulative cost of the restoration of the earnings link in its first 50 years of operation?

John Hutton: That figure is buried in the White Paper somewhere. I know that there is a table with that information because I was doing my homework on it last night, but of course I cannot find it now—that is the way of the world. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point: we have always made it clear that we will make proposals only if they are affordable. I am convinced that these reforms are and will be affordable, and will not involve taxes having to go up to meet the commitments. That is important.

Ian Davidson: I question the fairness of raising the retirement age. The average life expectancy for a man in my constituency is 69. If we raise the retirement age to 68, the average male in my constituency will have the equivalent of a gap year between retirement and death, whereas in other parts of the country the gap is a decade or more. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that steps will be taken, in parallel with raising the retirement age, to ensure that efforts are made to raise life expectancy in constituencies such as mine?

John Hutton: We are aware of the issue to which my hon. Friend draws attention. The state pension age will reach 68 in 40 years' time and I am confident that his constituency and others will have a matching rise in longevity to meet that. The Turner commission suggested that we consider the issue of when pension credit becomes available, and the White Paper makes it clear that we are doing so, because that proposal might go some way towards addressing the concerns of my hon. Friend and others.

Julian Lewis: The Secretary of State reiterated today what he said on16 March, which is that he still proposes to consider the case of APW Electronics and others, on which there is a three-party consensus—led by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham)—that something must be done. Can the Secretary of State tell us how many firms are in the position of having been forced to give up 80 per cent. of their pensions under duress before the scheme came into effect? Will he use his best endeavours to save the futures of only a small number of people?

John Hutton: I do not know the exact figure, but only a few employers fall into that category. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen has been at the forefront of the campaign for people in that position. If it would be helpful, I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and others to discuss the problem and try to find a sensible way forward. Unfortunately, I am not announcing today a way forward on that problem, but I am happy to receive a delegation to go through the arguments and seek a sensible solution.

Kitty Ussher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposal to finance the restoration of the earnings link in the long term merely through so-called efficiency savings, as proposed by the Opposition at the last election, was never credible?

John Hutton: Unfortunately, on a day of consensus, I have to agree with my hon. Friend. At least there is a consensus on this side of the House, which is always pleasant. We have a responsibility—as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said—to set out how we will fund such reforms over the long term. That was completely absent during the last election and we have now proposed a sensible package of proposals that will allow us to sustain our reforms for the long term.

Henry Bellingham: The Secretary of State will be aware that hundreds of former Albert Fisher employees in my constituency have had their lives turned upside down. They will welcome the announcement of the widening of the criteria, but after so much heartache can they really trust the Government to come up with the extra funds of £2 billion without strings attached? If there are problems, will he agree to receive a delegation of former Albert Fisher employees?

John Hutton: I am always happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about any problem in his constituency and to meet him and his constituents to cover that ground. We are making a commitment to improve the financial assistance scheme and the money will be there to support the extension. I sense today that people have warmly welcomed our proposals. We are trying to put right an injustice and today's announcement will go a long way to resolving the issue.

John Denham: I thank my right hon. Friend for his promise to meet members of the APW scheme, because they—and we—will not go away. Having said that, as a former pensions Minister I think that today should be seen as an historic occasion. My right hon. Friend has produced the best opportunity for a lasting cross-party consensus on pensions policy that we have seen in the past 30 years. It is a truly remarkable achievement and he should be congratulated, and Lord Turner should be congratulated on laying the groundwork. I hope that today will be seen as the most significant day in pension policy for many years.

John Hutton: I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks. It is probably best for others to make such claims—but I agree with him! I am happy to have further discussions with him on the APW issue, and we will go every inch of the way to try to find a sensible solution.

Peter Bone: If I have understood the Secretary of State correctly, in 2044 the retirement age will increase to 68. Does he envisage that that age will have to increase? Will someone starting work today be guaranteed to retire at 68, or will the age have to be increased in the future?

John Hutton: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, there is a limit to the range of my knowledge and wisdom on these matters and 40 years is probably as far ahead as I can safely predict.

Nia Griffith: Given that many more people now have a fragmented employment history, moving from one employer to another frequently or doing two or three jobs at once, will the new system serve them well?

John Hutton: That is a very important point. Many of the workers who are not currently saving for their own retirement are in that position. As we design the personal account scheme, one of its principal objectives will be to have sufficient flexibility and portability, so that it can be easily moved from one employer to another. I hope that that will be one of the hallmarks of the new scheme and I am happy to continue discussing that with my hon. Friend if she would find that useful.

Tony Lloyd: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on an excellent package. Perhaps the best aspect of it is that it will erode the injustice towards women that has been endemic in the pensions structure. He has given guarantees about the state system, but women are still disadvantaged in occupational pensions. Will he think seriously about having a gender impact assessment of the White Paper to identify those systemic problems and to get across to women that planning for their pensions is very much in their interest?

John Hutton: My hon. Friend is right, and we have already informed the Equal Opportunities Commission that we will make a gender impact assessment of our proposals.

Frank Doran: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the White Paper and the manner in which he secured it. On behalf of my constituents who are members of the Richards pension fund—now part of the financial assistance scheme—I thank him for the extension of the scheme, which will be important to many of them. He will be aware that the scheme has serious problems of cost, complexity and delay, so what proposals does he have to improve the administration of the scheme?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words, which are much appreciated. I said earlier that we are not satisfied with the current standard and level of performance. We are considering several options for improving that, but I do not really want to announce the details today. It is only fair and right to point out that some of the difficulties that we have encountered arise from the complexity of the situation, and we are heavily dependent on receiving information from scheme trustees on time. If that does not happen, it is difficult to act as quickly as we would like. We are looking at the administration of the scheme and I want to speed it up, because it is important for those who can benefit from it to get the financial support as quickly as possible. That might go some way to addressing the uncertainty and fear that they have about the future.

Clive Betts: I warmly welcome the totality of the package that my right hon. Friend has announced, but will he give some consideration to the continued existence of the higher-rate tax relief? By and large, it tends to go to people who already save for their pensions anyway. Instead, could he not transfer some of that money to provide even more assistance and encouragement for people to adopt the new personal accounts? The people who will opt out are probably those at the bottom end of the earnings scale, and we could give them greater assistance if the higher-rate tax relief were abolished.

John Hutton: We will certainly look at what my hon. Friend suggests, and I welcome his support for the White Paper. However, these are matters for which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has responsibility, and it is probably safer and better for me to stick to my own responsibilities.

Rob Marris: My question is along similar lines to the one asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). The higher-rate relief costs the Treasury £18 billion a year in forgone tax revenues. Overwhelmingly, it is claimed by the richest in our society yet evidence from the Department for Work and Pensions suggests that tax relief on pension savings has almost no effect in encouraging people to save for their pensions. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend explain in more detail the matter raised by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill): how will the 1 per cent. tax relief in the national pensions savings scheme work, and what will it do?

John Hutton: The 1 per cent. tax relief in the NPSS will be paid in the normal way that tax relief is paid into existing occupational schemes. My hon. Friend raises a wider point that several other hon. Members have also referred to and, although I do not want to repeat a standard answer, all matters to do with tax relief are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I know that he will be considering those matters.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome the announcements made by my right hon. Friend, especially those having to do withthe financial assistance scheme. However, what will be the position of self-employed people in respect of the NPSS? How will it work for them, and how many self-employed people are expected to enrol in the scheme?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Again, it is very difficult to offer a precise estimate, but several hundred thousand self-employed people might choose to enrol in the NPSS. Obviously, they cannot be enrolled automatically as, by definition, there would be no employer contribution on their behalf. The estimate that I have given is not an exact science, but we are clear that self-employed people should have the right to invest pension savings in the low-cost personal accounts if they want to.

Richard Burden: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend? There are many positive elements in the package that he has presented, and I especially welcome the substantial extension to the financial assistance scheme, which will be of great importance to my constituents and others who have worked at Kalamazoo. I understand that he cannot say precisely how many people will be effected by the extension, but they will want to be assured that the matter will be kept under review in the future. Finally, may I add my voice to those who have stressed the importance of speeding up the administration of the scheme? Some people have immediate needs, and it is important that they be addressed now.

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We will continue to look at every aspect of the matters that he has raised to ensure that the scheme works as we want it to. We think that roughly another 20,000 people will be eligible for additional support under the financial assistance scheme measures that I have announced today.

Tom Levitt: And finally, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing the statement to run on, so that so many hon. Members could get in. However, my right hon. Friend will know that there are probably more existing and future members of the failed Turner and Newall pension scheme in my constituency than anywhere else. We are hopeful that, if necessary, the pension protection fund will come to that scheme's rescue, but the matter raises questions about employer contribution holidays, and about the relation between British law and the law of the other countries when multinational companies are involved. Does he envisage any changes to the operation of the PPF, or to the criteria by which it operates?

John Hutton: No, the White Paper contains no announcements of changes to the PPF, which has only just begun operation. However, we will keep all matters to do with the reforms under very careful review.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the House for its response to my earlier plea about the way in which questions should be asked. Also, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the way in which he responded to them.

Point of Order

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, I asked the Minister for Schools how many children of secondary school age in Wellingborough had not been allocated a school place. I learned this afternoon that the number was a minimum of 11. I think that the Minister may have misled the House, very inadvertently, by suggesting that the number was zero.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter that should be taken up in other ways. It is not for the Chair to deal with now.

Whitsun Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn— [Jonathan Shaw.]

David Drew: I am delighted to take part in this debate, especially given that the earlier statement on pensions makes this an important day for all of us.
	I want to speak about four matters that are important to my constituency, but I shall begin with an international problem that has not yet received a sufficient airing in this place. I hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, who is on the Front Bench this afternoon, will refer it to his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and in the Foreign Office.
	Last Monday, the European Parliament decided to allow the fishing deal between the EU and Morocco, which involves the waters off the western Sahara, to go ahead. As an issue, it does not arouse the same level of interest or raise the same hackles as the many and varied conflicts in the middle east, parts of Africa, south-east Asia or South America. However, the UN promised people in the western Sahara that there would be a referendum on their territorial independence. They have waited a long time, and it still has not happened. That is a disgrace.
	To rub salt into the wound, the fish in the sea around the western Sahara—one of the area's most important resources—are about to be gobbled up by trawlermen from Spain and other EU countries. Thankfully, it is unlikely that British trawlermen will be involved, as we have so few left. The people of the western Sahara feel that they have been sold out.
	I and other hon. Members have asked questions about the matter, and I have been dismayed to discover that the Government seem to take the view that, as long as the deal did not break international law or make a huge impact on the numbers of fish in the sea in that part of the world, there were no grounds on which to object to what the EU was planning.
	Another problem has to do with the advice given to British Members of the European Parliament. I do not want to be party political, but Labour MEPs either did not vote or chose not to vote against the scheme, even though the vote represented an opportunity to express the clear position that the Government have adopted in respect of the western Sahara. Unless I am mistaken, that opportunity was not taken. The people in the western Sahara have been sold out by the international community for a generation or more and, as well as speaking words of support for them, we should put those words into action.
	I turn now to the four local issues that I want to raise. I shall be brief, as I know that there are lots of other hon. Members who want to speak in the debate. First of all, there is currently a lot of talk about how we can make greater use of renewable energy sources. I am a great advocate of renewables, but the idea of building a barrage across the river Severn has recently been put back on the agenda by the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly. He is a member of my party and a friend of mine, and has said that it is time for the scheme to be reappraised. I do not mind a review of the decision made some years ago.
	The original feasibility study started in the 1970s and carried on until the 1990s. I tried to struggle through all the different papers and the volumes of evidence, and I have two quick comments to make. First, there were strong environmental downsides to building a Severn barrage. The colossal proposal might cater for about25 per cent. of our energy needs, but not least of the downsides was the irretrievable damage to the flora and fauna of the river Severn. Secondly, I am a strong supporter of the so-called nuclear option, as hon. Members may know, but in some quarters it is ruled out as being the wrong approach because of its sheer scale and the fact that it is designed to pump electricity into the national grid when what we want is microgeneration. I agree that we need microgeneration. The Severn barrage is a colossal scheme, paid for not necessarily by the public sector, but largely by the private sector. The come-back of that will be massive development, largely of housing, which will have a big impact on Stroud.
	Local government reform is back on the agenda. We may all be tempted to yawn at the prospect of ritual sacrifice and to believe that whatever we say and do, nothing much will happen. I hope that on this occasion something will happen, because it is about time that Gloucestershire moved to some sort of unitary arrangement, especially given that those areas with unitary arrangements seem to have better, simpler local government. I ask my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to pass my views on to the new Department for Communities and Local Government. If we are to be serious about local government reform, please can we make sure that the proposals are properly aired and that we consider the benefits, not just the faults, of the proposals? A return to the status quo is unacceptable.
	I see advantages for Gloucestershire becoming a two-authority county, although there are arguments for one authority. The current arrangement of six districts and one county lead to great confusion. We must ensure that that confusion is put to bed once and for all and that we give people the service that they deserve. Health cuts mean that that requirement is greater than ever, because we desperately need to clarify the relationship between social services and health provision.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman talks a lot of sense, as he always does. Does he share my despair at the removal of democracy from local people? Does he want democracy taken to the lowest level and to stop regionalisation?

David Drew: Of course I do. Double devolution is a trendy term. As a town councillor for the past 18 years, I strongly believe that the first layer of government has a part to play, but we do not need three layers of government. We need two layers of largely local government. We need to empower urban areas so that they have that first layer of community, neighbourhood government. We need to see that through as quickly as possible with a democratic mandate. The Government talk about leadership, fitting with the local authority and value for money. I am happy to have that debate, but I am not happy to end up with the same fudge.
	We need to sort out our rail service, especially the status of the line between Kemble and Swindon—that is the London line for me. In my constituency I am in the fortunate position of having a north-south line and an east-west line. Many years ago someone had the bright idea to single-track the line between Kemble and Swindon, and that was to extend all the way to Cheltenham. Whoever came up with that was hardly looking to the future because it is now the cause of significant delays. When trains run late other trains have to wait for the nine to 10 miles of single track to become clear. We are not talking about the usual cattle train moving people backwards and forwards; we are talking about 125s and a mainline service.
	When I was first elected, the CBI said that its most important objective was to have a first-class rail service—in terms of service, not tickets—from London to Cheltenham. We have not seen any investment to achieve that, but that line has to be re-signalled in the next decade or two, so we may see it yet. I should like to see that front-ended and brought forward as a matter of urgency. I think that I am able to call upon the support of the Great Western, which has now won the Greater Western franchise. It seems interested in how we could redouble the line and get trains moving much more easily, frequently and without lateness being built in because of the lateness of other trains.
	Finally, I congratulate the Government on doing what I think is right. I was very pleased with the Affordable Rural Housing Commission last week when it made important statements on how we need to get more affordable housing into our ruralities. It offered ideas of how we might do that, such as changing the planning system, investing more money and showing more inclination to make sure that when houses are built we build more affordable and social housing. Pleasingly, there was a particular mention of an idea that some of us in Stroud have been pioneering on community land trusts or what is technically called locally, Gloucestershire Land For People. We hope to do a deal with English Partnerships on the Cashes Green hospital site, which will yield many benefits. I am sure that many hon. Members now know something about community land trusts. The one great advantage is that the asset value is locked away so that people, while sharing in the appreciation of their property value, cannot sell the land. The land remains in communal ownership. The idea sounds rather socialist in principle, but is widely used in the United States, where there are good examples of community land trusts, and many other parts of the world. We are looking for an early decision that that would be the preferred bid for that site—I am about to become a director, so I should declare an interest. The people behind the bid have been given encouragement and resources. That would be a model for the rest of the country, so this is not just about Stroud getting a bit of a lift. We would be doing something that could be adopted more widely to provide the sort of answers that we need in order to provide affordable housing.
	My hon. Friend has plenty to think about from me. I am sure that other hon. Members have views to share. I wish everyone a happy Whitsun.

Paul Holmes: I, too, have one or two issues to raise in this Adjournment debate. Although they are based on constituency examples, each one is part of a national trend. I am sure that hon. Members present will nod in recognition of the issue that they too have in their constituency. They may disagree on how to deal with the problem, but almost everyone present will share it.
	The first one is in connection with the national health service. Tomorrow I have my usual Friday afternoon constituency surgery. One of the people who has booked in to see me is a ward sister from Chesterfield's Royal hospital. She is one of 133 people in her position at the hospital who were summoned in on Tuesday last week to be told by hospital management that their jobs were being restructured and that they could all reapply for them, but that over the next few months one third of them would lose their jobs. In short, 43 ward sisters are going to be made redundant. The hospital is well run, and hopes to manage the process without too much stress and pain by absorbing the cuts in its normal nursing staff turnover of 8 per cent. a year, through natural wastage and turnover rather than compulsory redundancies, although in the end that method may have to be used. None the less, 43 ward sisters will lose their jobs in Chesterfield over the next year.
	The hospital is undertaking a similar exercise by making an analysis of other staff sectors to try to shed jobs to save money. The House can imagine the trauma facing 133 ward sisters who have been told that a third of them will lose their jobs and that more job cuts will follow in other parts of the hospital.
	Why is the hospital in that position? It seems to have done everything that the Government wanted since 1997. The hospital became a trust. I do not support trusts; I opposed the hospital's move to trust status at the time, for the same reasons as I opposed the concept of school trusts in the Education and Inspections Bill. Introducing free-market, cut-throat competition is not the way to improve or deliver health services or to educate our children. However, my local hospital became a trust, as the Government wanted, and it has been incredibly successful.
	In each of the past three years, the hospital was awarded three stars by the Government—the top rating. Last year, it was also commended as the top hospital in the east midlands—the best in five counties. Since 1997, it has done everything that the Government wanted, so the job losses that are being imposed are not the fault of the hospital management nor of the excellent NHS staff who are hitting every target, even after the introduction of competition. The chief executive told me recently about the worry of losing patients to NHS providers elsewhere and to private sector treatment centres such as the one at Barlborough, just outside my constituency.
	The hospital has made further improvements in departments that were already doing extremely well, such as ophthalmology. It can now treat more patients, to the benefit of the Chesterfield Royal but at the expense of other hospitals in the area which will lose patients and income, and thus face even greater problems, which is why I opposed trusts in the first place.
	The hospital has done everything it was asked, and done it extremely well, yet now people will have to be sacked, and services for the people of Chesterfield will be reduced. Why? The hospital was expecting a cut of 1.7 per cent. in the tariff for providing medical services; in effect, that was the Gershon efficiency review saving that public bodies in general, including my local council, were expected to make on a yearly basis. However, at the last minute the calculations were abandoned and the Government told the hospital that the tariff reduction, or the cut in funding, would be2.5 per cent. Even worse than that last-minute increase in the deficit, the hospital was told that there would be a special technical adjustment to the tariff of another 2.5 per cent. In the space of only three or four weeks, a good, well-funded, well-organised and efficient hospital went from planning for a managed efficiency saving of 1.7 per cent. to trying to cope with a 5 per cent. cut in its funding.
	That situation has been mirrored across the country, on a much bigger scale in some areas. Figures released today show that 12,000 job losses have been announced in the NHS since 1 March alone, which makes the 43 announced so far in Chesterfield look quite small, although it is no comfort to those who are losing their jobs in Chesterfield that health trusts elsewhere, including areas close to Derbyshire, are suffering much greater losses imposed at only a few weeks' notice.
	The situation is the result of the Government's rushed introduction of market-based competition and their insistence on hospitals hitting centrally imposed targets on waiting lists, whatever the financial cost. Trusts are reaping the whirlwind because they have overspent in various sectors to enable the Government to hit their targets. Reform has been forced through at breakneck pace to hit the appropriate media headlines and to help create the Prime Minister's legacy.
	The same is happening in other parts of the NHS, such as dentistry. A stream of people have visited my constituency surgeries or written to me over recent months to tell me that it is impossible to find a dental practice in Chesterfield that will take on new NHS patients. After the introduction of the new contract, several dentists have completely opted out and no longer treat NHS patients. About half the people of Chesterfield were not enrolled with an NHS dentist and the figures have got worse over the past two months. It appears that they will get even worse over the next year. Again, that situation is common throughout the country.
	It is time for a long-term, sensible planning regime in the health service, rather than emergency cuts. We should put a brake on this disastrous process and pause a while to consider what is being done to the NHS. Meanwhile, NHS staff in Chesterfield and elsewhere need reassurance about the job losses they face at present, and those in the pipeline for later in the year, which threaten them even though they are absolutely blameless and have done everything asked of them by the Government.

Diana Johnson: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about the NHS tariff. Does he think that there should be a common tariff across the country or should the costs of operations vary from one hospital to another? It seems sensible to have the same costs throughout the country. Does he agree?

Paul Holmes: There are different costs in different parts of the country, although there is weighting in the system to take account of wage rates; for example, in London and Derbyshire. There must be some variations. The point I was making is that NHS reforms must be carefully planned to ensure stability. In Germany, where the health service took a similar road, the process took 18 years, yet we are trying to do it in no more than 18 months. To make the NHS—the largest single employer in Europe—a more efficient organisation, we need to look at local accountability and decision making rather than jumping at the behest of centrally imposed targets from Whitehall. That is not the way to run the health service, the police service, the Home Office or many other Departments of State.
	Council housing is a major issue in my constituency, as it is in many parts of the country, although it takes different guises, because, as a result of Government policy, many councils no longer control it. Every week, people contact my surgery or my Chesterfield office about the problems of finding social housing. Two age extremes typify the problem. There are young families with children who want a house. They may be living with parents or friends and as children come along the situation becomes impossible. They may be living in one-bedroom council flats on the first or second floor, which is wholly unsuitable for children, so they want a family house. They cannot afford to buy or rent in the private sector so they want a council house.
	At the other age extreme are pensioners or people approaching pensionable age. They may be living in council flats. I know one couple who were the first occupants of a brand new flat on a new council estate in the early 1960s. They still live there, but their flat is on the top floor, so what was suitable for them when they were young—they had no children—is no longer suitable now that they are in their 70s. They suffer from arthritis and they have noisy young neighbours with a different lifestyle. They want to move to an old people's bungalow.
	The problem for the council is that it no longer has bungalows or family houses to offer. Were it not for the right-to-buy policy, Chesterfield would have 19,000 council properties; there are actually fewer than 10,000 and the number is falling each year. I have never objected to the right-to-buy policy. I was elected to Chesterfield council in 1987 and was a member of the housing committee. Labour councillors were furious about Margaret Thatcher's right-to-buy policy, which had just been introduced. As I said to them, I could not understand why they were so angry. If they had thought of the policy of using public money to build social housing and allowing people who had lived in those houses for five, 10 or 15 years to cash that in as a discount and buy a house—something that those people would never have been able to afford to do under normal conditions—I would have seen that as a good piece of socialist engineering to give people access to the property market and property ownership. I have been told since—I discovered this only this year—that the Labour party was considering that in the late 1970s, but ruled it out of the manifesto as being unacceptable. How things have changed.
	The problem with the right-to-buy policy from the 1980s and now is that the money is not invested back into providing more social housing. In Chesterfield, for example, 75 per cent. of the money from each right-to-buy purchase is taken away by the Government to spend elsewhere—or disappears into the Chancellor's coffers—rather than being invested in providing more social housing. Since 1997, there have been 600,000 right to buys across the country and the waiting list for council housing has gone up by—hon. Members have guessed it—a nice symmetrical 600,000 to the nearest round thousand. Those seem the social housing provision polices of the madhouse. Right to buy can provide social mobility and access to the property market, but the money must be reinvested if we are to avoid major problems.
	The Government's answer is to force tenants across the country to leave the tender mercies of the council and have a registered social landlord, a housing association or a private finance initiative landlord—in other words, to privatise in one form or another. That costs more in the long run—just like PFI builds for schools and hospitals—because taxpayers foot the vast bulk of the bill and because people in the private or semi-private sectors borrow more expensively. However, it gets the money off the public sector borrowing requirement. It is a nice piece of voodoo economics or voodoo accountancy to massage the public spending figures. It is a piece of nonsense that is sold to us as choice.
	When I have raised the matter in debates, in Prime Minister's Question Time and in private meetings with Ministers, I have been told over and over again that I should celebrate choice. I do celebrate choice. One area where I part company from some of my fellow members of the Defend Council Housing group in Parliament, of which I am the vice-chair, is that some of them would say that there should be no privatisation or opting out of council properties. As a teenager, I grew up on one of the biggest council estates in Europe, in Sheffield, and I can see that some council tenants in some parts of the country might well feel that their council has made such an appalling job of running their estate that they would rather have a different landlord. However, the vast majority do not feel like that and the vast majority of councils that have moved over to this system have done so because the Government put a gun to their head or because they faced Hobson's choice. Essentially, the decision is sold as, "You privatise, or you do not get your house repaired." That is the choice that is being presented. I cannot understand the logic of a Labour Government who go down that route.
	Of course, once one has gone down that route there is no going back. If the people of Chesterfield do not like the way in which the council is running the 10,000, 12,000, 15,000 or 19,000 council houses at any one time, they can change the management. They did in 2003: they elected the Liberal Democrats. People can change the situation; that is what democracy is about. However, once they have gone down the road of having a housing association or a PFI landlord, that is it. There is no coming back. There is no accountability with those landlords, especially when a small housing association merges with another and another and becomes a big national organisation instead of the small, local, friendly, housing association that was sold to people in the first place.
	Then there is the limited amount of money that the Government allow to be distributed into social housing via councils. What happens in that case? This has been mentioned in meetings we have had with Ministers. Of course, there is a limited amount of money and it is rationed. However, it is not rationed fairly according to which councils have the greatest need. The Government basically say, "Well, in the case of the hundred or so councils where tenants have voted not to privatise, that's tough. You do not get anything. You have voted and made your choice and we are going punish you. You don't get the cash." The ones that go half way down the road and have an arm's length management organisation will get what limited cash is still available via the Government.
	That is no way to allocate the limited funds that are available for public sector housing through council provision. Of course, money is always short and has to be rationed and spent over a number of years, but that money should be allocated on the basis of the need of places such as Chesterfield, Birmingham, Cambridge, Camden and the other areas that have said that they do not want to privatise. The money should be allocated according to need, not according to whether people are willing to have an ALMO or whether they take the democratic choice to stay with the council.
	What happens to rents in some parts of the country? In Chesterfield last year, not only did the Government take £6 million away from Chesterfield council tenants in right-to-buy receipts that went off into the Chancellor's coffers, they took £3.2 million from their rents to spend in other parts of the country. When I raised that with the Minister, he said, "Oh, but we only do that to affluent Tory shires." I had to point out that Chesterfield is not an affluent Tory shire. It is a working class coalfield community, except that, since 1992, there have been no coal mines left. It is a working class community that had lots of engineering and steel works—except they have almost entirely gone, as well. It is a community that had much higher than average unemployment. That is coming down, but it is still higher than average to this day. It has many social problems. It is not an affluent Tory shire. However,£3.2 million is taken away from council tenants' rents in Chesterfield every year—last year, the year before, the year before that, and next year—to spend elsewhere.
	To my horror, I discovered that some of that money is going via the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,as was, to provide infrastructure in London forthe Olympic games. Why are council tenants in Chesterfield seeing their rents go into that sort of spending? If Chesterfield borough council were allowed to keep half that money every year, it could provide the old age pensioners' bungalows to allow old pensioners to move out of family council houses, which would free them up for young people with children.

Theresa May: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has just said, because it suggests to me—I hope that he shares my concern about this—that Ministers are making decisions on matters that affect people's lives not on the basis of need, but according to stereotypical views of what the area is like and, by the sound of it, whether the council is controlled by the Conservatives.

Paul Holmes: I am not sure that Ministers would go down to the wire on that. As that was said in the meeting that I attended, it was a sop to the Labour members of the Defend Council Housing group who were there. It was as if they were saying, "It's okay. You don't need to worry. It's for a good reason." I am not sure whether, if one followed the small print, that would be how the decision was justified. As I say, it seems inexplicable that, last year alone, Chesterfield lost £9.2 million from its council tenants—from right-to-buy money and from rents. If Chesterfield borough council had half that money every year, we would not have a problem with housing people in Chesterfield. Instead, the waiting lists get longer. Whenever that is explained, people cannot understand the logic of a Labour Government following such policies. I know that many Labour Members agree with what I am saying.
	There is a fourth option, which is Liberal Democrat policy and Labour party policy. The Labour party reaffirmed the policy of equal access to funding for all councils and council tenants at the last Labour conference and the one before that. However, the Labour Government have reaffirmed each time that they will take no notice whatsoever of their own members or their own conference, and will carry on with their divisive, iniquitous and socially unfair set of policies.
	I could bring up many other issues, but I have an eye on the time and bearing in mind that there are lots of other Members who wish to speak, I will not. I will mention one issue in passing. I had the privilege of taking part in an Adjournment debate on Tuesday, which was held by the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), on the forced, compulsory merger of police forces to make an east midlands police force. I do not need to go into the details again because I went through them on Tuesday. I will simply summarise and say that we are seeing the merger of five county police forces into one super-force. That is happening all over the country. There was a sham consultation that was carried out to a ridiculous timetable. On 7 April, the five police authorities in the east midlands told the Government that they did not want to merge voluntarily. On11 April, they were told that they were going to merge anyway. What was the point of the whole sham process that started last autumn when the Government knew what they intended to impose in their first place?
	The changes are not going to be funded properly in any part of the country—certainly not in Derbyshire and the east midlands. Paying for the reorganisation will lead to reductions in the number of police officers on the beat. Above all, the change will lead to a loss of local responsiveness and accountability. I know the chief constable of Derbyshire. I can call on him easily. His base is not far away from Chesterfield. I know the chief superintendent of C division, which covers Chesterfield, and I am meeting her tomorrow to discuss all sorts of issues. How will I go on if the chief constable is in Northampton, or Leicester, or Nottingham? That will be just impossible—it is a nonsense.
	Since a new set of Ministers has taken on most posts in recent weeks, I hope that we will hear some answers that suggest that the Government are going to change their inexplicable policies on these matters, although I fear that I hope in vain.

Diane Abbott: I wish to raise one constituency matter and two international matters. The constituency matter on which I shall address the House is gun, knife and gang-related crime. The whole House will have read in the newspapers last week about the tragic stabbing of Kiyan Prince in north London. We in Hackney are familiar with the aftershock of such crime because in 2004, 16-year-old Robert Levy was stabbed to death by a 15-year-old.
	I wish to say a few words about the matter because the problem with both gun and knife crime is that, when there is an especially spectacular incident, it is all over the papers for a day or two, but then people forget about it. However, the problem is ongoing. There is a rising tide of incidents in the inner city. The problem does not just affect London, because the number of incidents of gun, knife and gang-related crime is increasing in urban areas throughout the country.
	We need to be aware that knife crime and knife homicide is a schoolboy's crime because the peak age for knife crime is between 14 and 21. The idea of playground quarrels that would once have resulted in a bloody nose ending with someone bleeding to death in the gutter, like Kiyan Prince or Robert Levy, is tragic. Such tragedies are also avoidable.
	I praise the Government for the work that they have already done on knife crime. We are going to raise the age at which it is legal to carry a knife from 16 to 18. We will also give teachers more powers to search schoolchildren for weapons, and there is talk of experimenting with metal detectors in schools. All those measures will be important and helpful, but I stress that we will not have an impact on knife, gun and gang-related crime in the long run unless we address the youth culture in our inner cities. The saturation of that youth culture with music, videos and video games, all of which are riddled with violence, lies behind some of the shocking incidents, such as the stabbing of the young man in north London a few days ago. Welcome though law enforcement measures are, they will not alone solve the problem.
	In Hackney, in the aftermath of the stabbing of Robert Levy, the police and community made a tremendous effort to address the situation. The police went into schools to teach young people about the dangers of knives and set up all kinds of mentoring schemes to give young people alternatives to their malign role models on the street. Very often, young teenagers are mentored in the ways of violence and crime by older men, so the police in Hackney are targeting those people so that they can get them behind bars. Meanwhile, the police are trying to work with young people and support their parents so that they can be given a different value system from that of the street, violence and MTV. The Government need to address the problem through not only law enforcement measures, but resources for such long-term work with young people and parents, whether that is done through local authorities, or through partnerships among the police, local authorities and the voluntary sector.
	It is easy for hon. Members from other parts of the country to say, "We don't have the problem in my constituency. It is a localised thing in the inner city, so why should I concern myself with it?". I would say to that that we are seeing the type of gun crime that was once a feature of areas such as Brixton and Hackney in Nottingham, Yorkshire and as far afield as Aberdeen, so what those hon. Members see in the city of London today, they will see in other urban areas tomorrow.
	Some of the wards in London with the most serious problems relating to gun and knife-related crime are on the edge of what will be the footprint of the Olympic park. The idea that we will bring millions of people in 2012 into an area that has systemic problems with gun, knife and gang-related crime on its fringes could—I say only "could"—prove embarrassing to all of us. For the sake of the mother of Kiyan Prince, the parents of Robert Levy, a whole generation of young people growing up in our city and this country's reputation, we cannot afford to let gun and knife-related crime be only the stuff of a few days' headlines before we all move on. We need sustainable work—both law enforcement and community work—that will help to save a generation of young boys who are being sucked up into a malign, lawless and violent culture.
	I want to raise the international issue of Guantanamo Bay. Hon. Members might say, "It's been there since 2002, so why should we talk about it again?" However, it is important to put it on record that, in the past week, important benchmarks have been set relating to the debate on Guantanamo Bay. First, the UN Committee against Torture has investigated Guantanamo Bay and concluded that the conditions there constitute torture. The Committee has also called for the camp to be closed down as soon as possible. We have also heard in the past few days that four detainees at Guantanamo have attempted to commit suicide, which gives the lie to the notion that there is nothing wrong with the regime there. Last but not least, our Attorney-General has taken the serious step of making a public speech saying that Guantanamo Bay should be closed as a matter of principle. Lord Goldsmith was swift to say that he was speaking in a personal capacity, and we must accept that, but when someone in his position with such a distinguished legal career steps up to condemn what is happening in Guantanamo, the House must listen. The Attorney-General is not the only person who has called for the closure of Guantanamo. The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has called for that, as have Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
	The problem with Guantanamo is partly what happens inside it, partly the dubious legal basis on which the Americans are holding the people and, finally, the negative effect that its very existence has on the war against terror. The Americans would argue that they are entitled to hold the people indefinitely without due process, as that would be internationally recognised, because they are at war. When it is suggested that, if the people are prisoners of war, they should be subject to the Geneva convention, the Americans refuse to accept that, but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they are holding the people because they are at war, yet refuse to accept that the Geneva convention applies.
	The Americans try to say that the conditions are fine and that the complaints of ex-detainees are unfounded, yet even the UN officials were not allowed to meet detainees without signing confidentiality agreements. Once the detainees actually leave Guantanamo—as did the British detainees, thankfully, due to the hard work of Lord Goldsmith and others—the stories that we hear about the treatment that they have endured are horrifying.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said earlier this week, the Government should facilitate a visit to Guantanamo by a delegation of British MPs. The Government should also do more for British residents who are not necessarily British nationals who find themselves interned in Guantanamo. I know that it is not the practice of Britain to offer consular services to people who are just British residents, but it is also not the practice of Britain to stand on the side while people are undergoing torture. International institution after international institution, culminating in the UN Committee against Torture, have said that conditions in Guantanamo are tantamount to torture.
	Tony Blair has to take advantage—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is an experienced Member of the House and knows that we do not address our colleagues in that manner.

Diane Abbott: My profuse apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The Prime Minister should take advantage of his special relationship with George W. Bush to raise the issue of Guantanamo in more emphatic and public terms than he has hitherto. The House recently debated the report on the 7/7 bombings in this country. As a House of Commons, we talk about anti-terrorism measures and legislation, policing, enforcement and law and order to ward off the threat of terrorism. However, as long as young Muslim men and women, wherever they might be, including in this country, see the camp at Guantanamo and people held outside the law, and hear the allegations of torture, it undermines both our fight to get community cohesion and the war against terror. We need to demonstrate that when we talk about civil liberties, freedom and enduring international values, it is not just talk but something that we mean. There is much more that our Government and Prime Minister can do to close down Guantanamo once and for all. That would represent an advance in the war against terror.
	The second international issue that I want to raise is the situation in Nigeria. It is a special country to me. I have one of the largest Nigerian communities in London and I have been privileged to visit it twice within the past 12 months. A horrible disaster took place in Nigeria in the past few days that was not been as well reported as it might have been. A pipeline explosion killed more than 200 people on the outskirts of Lagos. More than 100 blackened corpses were strewn on the water's edge. The Lagos state police commissioner said:
	"You can see the corpses. Some are burnt to ash. Others are remnants. We estimate"
	that more than 200 people died. Those people died not as a result of a natural disaster, but because they were tapping into a pipeline that runs close to Lagos to take away petroleum in jerry cans to sell. No more dangerous activity can be imagined, but the idea that there are people who are desperate enough to make money from such an activity points to some of the social and economic dislocation in Nigeria.
	Oil has been both a blessing and a curse. It has been a blessing because it could make Nigeria a prosperous country, but it has been a curse because, as is the case in so many oil-producing countries, it has brought with it corruption and an undue reliance on the oil production sector. It is not just that people die from tapping into pipelines. One of the other tragedies of oil production in Nigeria is that, although the Niger delta produces some of the highest quality oil in the world and makes billions, the Nigerians who live there exist not only in the most abject poverty, but in an area that has terrible oil pollution. The water is polluted. They cannot fish or farm, and they do not have access to fresh water. The situation has been going on for years. The huge profits made in Nigeria have not helped the people of the delta.

Norman Lamb: Does the hon. Lady agree that there needs to be far greater transparency in the payments made by extraction companies to developing countries? The brutal truth is that most of the money does not go to benefit the general population, but enriches a small elite.

Diane Abbott: I agree absolutely and wholeheartedly, and I shall come to that point because it is at the heart of my remarks.
	The natural gas from oil extraction is flared night and day, which means that villages are illuminated night and day. That shows the crudeness of the oil industry. It does not bother to use the natural gas as a resource in itself because the profits to be made from oil are so vast. Who benefits from that? As the hon. Gentleman said, there is no transparency in the payments made.
	The last time I was in Nigeria, we had a meeting with Shell. When I asked about oil pollution, the senior person in the company said that it was all caused by people tapping into its pipelines. I said, "Are you saying that there was never any oil pollution in the delta until people started tapping into pipelines?" She said, "No." I then asked, "Does Shell take no responsibility for the lack of infrastructure and schools, and the desperate plight of the people?" She said, "Well, no. We give money to the federal Government and local politicians. Our responsibility ends there." It is not good enough for a company with such strong British links to have that attitude to the environment and poverty reduction.
	We have worked with Nigeria on debt relief and governance and we all welcome the return to democratic elections. However, we need to work with Shell and other oil extraction companies to tell them that it is not enough for them to wash their hands and to say, in effect, "We have paid off federal and local officials. What more do you expect us to do?" Shell bears a big responsibility for the plight of ordinary people in the delta. It is time it faced up to that responsibility. Anything Her Majesty's Government can do to help them do that will be important.
	When I was in Nigeria, we heard about attempts by President Obasanjo, who is in his second term in office—in fact, he did another term as general in the long period when Nigeria was under military rule—to change the constitution so that he could have a third term. Fortunately, the Nigerian Senate debated that and voted his proposal down. That is a victory for democracy in Nigeria.
	This Government have a proud record on raising concerns about Africa and trying to work with it on debt reduction, most notably with Nigeria itself, but we need to go further. The Chancellor recently made a speech on corruption, but we need to go further still. We need to impress on a country such as Nigeria, which has the potential to be very wealthy, that there are still outstanding problems with governance, transparency, and the fact that the people of the Niger delta and across the country live in such poverty when the region is Shell's most profitable area for oil production.
	I make no apologies for raising Nigeria in the Chamber. Africa has so much potential. To visit Africa and see its raw materials and the potential of its people being wasted because of governance problems is tragic. I am grateful for the opportunity to draw those things to the attention of the House.

Tony Baldry: For me, this is undoubtedly the blackest day since I came into the House 23 years ago. Today, the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust announced the loss of 600 NHS posts. One of the consequences of that is that it will almost certainly undermine for ever the viability of the Horton general hospital in my constituency to perform the role of general hospital. The posts have been lost because the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust had a £33 million cut imposed on it at the beginning of the year. It was told at the outset of the financial year that it had to make savings of some £33 million.
	The House should pause for a second, as that means that 600 people have lost their jobs. Some of those posts will be lost as a result of natural wastage, but there will be 300 to 350 redundancies, affecting consultants, nurses from the Royal College of Nursing, ancillary workers, professionals allied to medicine, clerical staff, administrators and receptionists. They will lose their job because the way in which NHS funding works is desperately unfair to Oxfordshire and the Thames valley.
	NHS reference costs for 2005, which were published by the Department of Health in April 2006, provide an efficiency profile for hospitals, and they show that the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust is the most efficient general hospital trust in England, with a turnover of more than £300 million. However, it has to abolish more than 600 NHS posts, largely because of the way in which funding is allocated. Thames Valley strategic health authority receives the lowest allocation of any SHA in the country: each person in my constituency receives an average of £1,125, while the English average is £1,138 a head. That difference may not appear to be very great, but the overall difference between Thames Valley SHA and the next SHA on the list is £120 million. If we moved closer to the national average, that would remove the need for the £33 million cut imposed on the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust.

Henry Bellingham: Everyone in the House will sympathise with my hon. Friend's constituents. Is he aware that in west Norfolk my local hospital has just announced a major redundancy package? Does he agree that that flies in the face of the Secretary of State's recent statement that all redundancies would be achieved by natural wastage or by delaying appointments? She has some explaining to do, as there is mayhem in some hospitals and PCTs.

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Secretary of State said that last year was the "best year ever" for the NHS, but her words ring hollow for people in Oxfordshire. Sadly, the fact that an acute hospital trust has lost 600 posts does not merit a single mention in any of today's national newspapers. Such is the loss of NHS jobs in recent months that it is regarded as commonplace. That is what the Government have managed to do to the NHS.

Tim Boswell: My hon. Friend and I share the Horton hospital, which is part of the Oxford Radcliffe complex. Does he not agree that the cuts are worrying? Given the proven efficiency of that hospital grouping and the fact that, as he said, the fundamental problem is its overall unit funding compared with that for other bodies, what hope is there for the others?

Tony Baldry: Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I still believe in democratic principles, so perhaps public pressure and the petitioning of Parliament and the Government will have an impact. Ministers appear to live in a parallel universe, as they do not understand that NHS performance will be ratcheted down, year on year. The £33 million that Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust must find is additional to the £17.3 savings that the primary care trust—effectively, there is a single PCT in Oxfordshire—must find. Services in Oxfordshire are being squeezed in two ways: the acute hospital trust must make cuts, and the commissioning authority cannot provide as much money.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney(Mr. Cameron), my hon. Friends the Members for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) and for Henley (Mr. Johnson), and I have written to the Prime Minister. We sought to summarise our concerns:
	"These cuts are the result of a staggering £33 million debt in the area's NHS. The debt crippling our health services could be wiped out if Oxfordshire's NHS were funded at the national average. It is not. Instead it is underfunded by twenty per cent. No NHS Trust in Oxfordshire was to be funded at the national average this year. The Government's own figures reveal that Oxfordshire receives the lowest funding per patient in the whole country. The Government's own audit shows that the Oxford Radcliffe NHS Trust is the most efficient hospital Trust in the whole of England and Wales. These are not our figures, they are not the Trusts; they are the Department of Health's own. This blatant bias is reinforced by the fact that your constituency"—
	our letter was addressed to the Prime Minister—
	"is funded per patient above the national average by almost the same amount Oxfordshire is underfunded. NHS staff should not pay for the Government's unfair funding system and nor should patients. Job losses will set back mental health services including Witney and Banbury, witness the loss of community hospital beds across South Oxfordshire, and leave the John Radcliffe struggling to deliver operations. Oxfordshire now has fewer qualified nurses than we did four years ago."

Michael Wills: I accept that these are difficult issues, and the hon. Gentleman is making the case for his constituency extremely well. However, can he remind the House of how much funding his area received in 1997, and how much it receives today?

Tony Baldry: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to come to my constituency. On 19 June we are holding a public meeting in Banbury, which he is welcome to attend. Indeed, I would invite any Minister to visit Oxford or Oxfordshire, as they are notable by their absence. It is a great pity that when the Prime Minister summoned NHS chief executives to Downing street to talk about the crisis in the NHS he deliberately excluded Trevor Campbell Davis, the very competent chief executive of the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust. There is no way in God's creation that the hon. Gentleman or his ministerial colleagues can persuade my constituents or the people of Oxfordshire that a service lacerated by cuts is better than the service that the Government inherited in 1997, when the Horton was a vibrant general hospital.
	Let me explain the impact of the cuts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) can confirm, it is not just a matter of losing a general hospital. Banbury has for a long time been at the centre of a catchment area called "Banburyshire". It includes most of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry and a large part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). Those villages and market towns have looked to Banbury as their natural centre for facilities such as medical services. Indeed, the general practitioner of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry is a Banbury GP.
	For over a century we have had a general hospital serving that community, and it has been part of the identity of Banbury and the surrounding area. With the loss of the general hospital, we will be forced to look to Oxford, over an hour away, for many services. The loss of the general hospital will have a serious impact on the sense of identity of the area. From villages north of Banbury, such as Boddington, Oxford is a very considerable distance away.
	Among the services that will be lost are the 24/7 children's services. To take up the point made by the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), the reason why we have 24/7 paediatric care at the Horton is a consequence of the tragic death, way back in the mid-1970s, of a little boy called Ian Luckett. As a result, the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, Barbara Castle, set up a public inquiry, which deemed that there should be 24/7 paediatric services at the Horton hospital. Opening the inquiry, the chairman said:
	"The reason there has been this third enquiry is because it is recognised by the Department . . . that there should be the fullest enquiry to ensure such a thing"—
	the death of a child—
	"does not happen again."
	The inquiry recommended that
	"only severely ill children, fit to travel, should be admitted directly to Oxford hospitals."
	The history of the matter is set out in an Adjournment debate that I held on 17 March 2004.
	However, now we are to lose 24/7 paediatric services at the Horton. In other words, in my constituency we will have a worse health service than existed under Labour, under Barbara Castle, in 1974. We will not lose paediatric services alone. We will also lose obstetric services, out-of-hours emergency services and the special care baby unit. From now on, we will have only a midwife-led maternity unit. We have had a vibrant and viable maternity unit until now. Midwives do a brilliant job, but as all hon. Members know, any GP looking after an expectant mother where there is a scintilla of a suggestion of any complication will now suggest to her that she go to the John Radcliffe hospital, rather than the Horton general hospital, to have her baby. By undermining maternity services,we will lose obstetric services and undermine gynaecological services as well.

Tim Boswell: I ought to declare an interest, in that my wife bore all three of our children in the Horton maternity unit. Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is to be a midwife-only service, if any complications that have not been anticipated develop, it will be extremely difficult to get access to specialist care within the necessary critical time?

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Everyone in the House must recognise that even in the best conditions, it takes at least an hour to get from Banbury to Oxford.
	We face a complete unravelling of services. Paediatric services, maternity and obstetric services, gynaecological services and surgery will all be undermined. What did the manager of the hospital say this week when he was challenged? He said that he looked to improved on-site care for the elderly and provision of community beds. Within a couple of weeks we have gone from having a general hospital with all the services that we have always expected a general hospital to give, to some super-community hospital with a collection of services at the whim of whoever is running the trust.

Theresa May: In relation to the loss of maternity services and services such as paediatrics and obstetrics, does my hon. Friend share my concern that that is a pattern that we are seeing across the country? For example, Wycombe hospital has lost its maternity unit, and the special care baby unit is now at Stoke Mandeville in Aylesbury, which means that my constituents have to travel even further for that service. The same has happened in Bury. Across the country, people are losing services locally and losing choice.

Tony Baldry: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. There are a smaller number of acute hospitals such as the John Radcliffe, and the Horton's viability as a general hospital will be undermined. Worse, when I met the primary care trust's acting chief executive the other day, it was made clear to me that the commissioners oppose community hospitals because they are so strapped for funds that they will move anything they can from the acute centre to social care, for which there is a means test administered by the county council. Community hospitals and community beds will, therefore, also disappear and acute services will be under great pressure.
	One has only to look at the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust website to realise that one of the consequences of the cuts is that £38 million will have to be saved in surgery. That means that no one will get an operation for at least six months. The whole point of managing surgery becomes trying to ensure that, to save money, people wait for the maximum time, but are treated just within the Government target.
	The position is bleak. As recently as Prime Minister's questions on 19 April, the Prime Minister trumpeted an expansion of cardiac services at the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust. The consequence of the cuts is that cardiac ablation therapy to control an irregular heartbeat—the treatment that the Prime Minister received—will no longer be available to most patients at the John Radcliffe hospital.
	General hospitals such as the Horton are being undermined, the John Radcliffe has to reduce its services substantially, the acute hospital trust has to make massive cuts in surgery and NHS skilled staff are being made redundant. That is crazy. My constituents and the people of Oxfordshire find it insulting when Labour Members try to pretend that that constitutes an improvement in the NHS or in services for my constituents. It demonstrates that Ministers and Labour Members are increasingly living in a parallel universe. I partly understand the reason for that. Ministers will not visit hospitals such as mine. Their officials wheel them out simply to see showcase improvements, so they get a false sense of what is happening.
	The funding formula is skewed against counties such as Oxfordshire so unfairly that I suspect that many Labour Members are genuinely misled into believing that there is more money in the NHS than is the case. However, they should reflect on the fact that so many of the cuts are being made in London and the south-east.
	My constituents will try to respond through every possible democratic means. We have started a petition, which appears in today's newspapers such as the  Banbury Guardian and the  Banbury Cake. People can sign it online at www.saveourservices.com. When, on one day, approximately 155 beds are lost at the Churchill hospital and 30 beds at the John Radcliffe, and we learn that Oxfordshire will have fewer qualified nurses than in 2002, I am sure that hon. Members understand why today is, for me, the blackest day since I became a Member of Parliament. I hope that the Government will reflect and realise that what they are doing to the NHS is unacceptable, and that the people of Britain will not accept it.

Michael Wills: I should like to take the opportunity of the debate to consider a much longer-term vision for Swindon, the town that I have the honour of representing. Swindon's existence and prosperity are a tribute to the power of vision. In its first incarnation as a great manufacturing town, it owed everything to the great engineer and entrepreneur, Isambard Kingdom Brunel. When the railways, on which Swindon's prosperity was based, began to decline, the vision and foresight of a post-war Labour town council prompted it to buy a lot of land and to make the town very attractive to businesses. At a time when it was not a fashionable occupation for Labour councils, it wooed businesses to come to Swindon, and that has been the basis of our prosperity for many decades.
	We have been open to the world economy, however, and we now face very particular challenges, from which there is no hiding place. Chinese exports to Europe have increase 100 per cent. in three years, for example, and up to 5 million European and American jobs will be outsourced in the next 15 years. Moreover, many people now realise that we face competition not only from low-wage and low-skill economies. Every year, universities in China and India turn out 4 million graduates.
	Nowhere can escape change. Each of Swindon's major employers has experienced radical restructuring, including W.H. Smith, Asda and Zurich, and Motorola is now consulting on further redundancies. Even the most successful companies in our town are having to face these challenges. Swindon is a prosperous town at the moment, but that prosperity cannot be taken for granted. We must remain attractive to the employers who are going to bring in the high-skill, high-value-added jobs on which our future prosperity depends. That means not only that we need the right skills base but that the town must have an attractive environment.
	The employees on whom those employers will depend are highly mobile, not only within the United Kingdom but throughout Europe and across the globe. Their skills are highly in demand and they can move anywhere, so we have to make the town attractive to them. If we do that, we will have a better chance of attracting the employers on whom the town's prosperity depends. I made this case strongly to the Government a few years ago, and I was able to persuade them to bring in an urban regeneration company, now known as the New Swindon Company. It is regenerating the town centre with that vision very much in mind, and about £1 billion worth of redevelopment will take place in due course. The University of Bath is planning to locate a major campus in Swindon, which will also be crucial to providing the basis for the high skills on which the town's prosperity depends.
	We have to get the vision right, and we have to do so now, while these decisions are being taken. This not a party political issue. I represent the Labour party in North Swindon, but the town council is now Conservative dominated. However, all these decisions will have an impact long after everyone who is now active in local politics has departed the scene. We have to get it right. That is our duty as local politicians. But these crucial decisions are being made, primarily by the town council, without sufficient ambition for the town. We have to compete with other towns not only in the United Kingdom but in Europe and across the world. We have to be more attractive than towns elsewhere, but the town council does not seem able to grasp that vision. I want to explore this point in relation to cultural regeneration and to more general environmental concerns.
	The town council has a vision for the town centre, working with the New Swindon Company, that will undoubtedly result in a significant improvement on what he have now. Any hon. Members familiar with Swindon town centre will know that that would not be hard to achieve. However, when the town council talks about building a desperately needed new library, why does it not talk about building one of the best libraries in Britain or Europe? If we consider the example of Tower Hamlets, we can see what an imaginative borough council can do. There is a wonderful new library there called the Idea Store. It is visionary and exciting, bringing in local people in a way that no one would have imagined 10 or 15 years ago. But Swindon does not think in that visionary, imaginative way. Swindon borough council has to learn from elsewhere, and to think about how it can compete with Tower Hamlets and everywhere else in Europe. We are also talking about building a new concert hall in the town, but we are not talking about a concert hall that would be capable of attracting world-class performers. We should be.
	The Swindon local area agreement has just been signed off, and it represents an important step forward for the borough council. It is an improving council with a great deal of support from central Government, and the local area agreement brings together many local agencies in a worthwhile way. I have been urging the borough council for a long time to have a visionary theme to underpin its work, but what did it come up with? It came up with, "Swindon—the UK's best business location". Any town is likely to want to be that, but we must look a little more deeply to avoid a bland and meaningless phrase.
	There is nothing in the local area agreement to suggest why Swindon is going to be the best business location. I very much hope that it will be, but we have to work at that, not just assert it and assume that it will be true. We have to produce the infrastructure and resources that will make it the best business location. The targets in the local area agreement are, of course, good and will improve the position on the ground in a range of different ways, but they are not very ambitious. They are, for the most part, pretty much in line with targets that the Government have set centrally. All that the local area agreement is doing is mimicking those targets. It is good, but not good enough.
	For three or more years, I have been begging the council to develop a green vision for the town and to make it the centrepiece of the local area agreement, but I am afraid that I have been ignored. Everyone accepts that, in climate change, we face one of the greatest problems in the history of our species and that if we do not tackle it now, the consequences for our world will be incalculable. We all have to make a contribution: it is not just a matter for international agreements and national Governments; we have to act personally and in our local areas. We have opportunities to do that and other towns are doing it.
	A Conservative council in Woking is doing fantastically good work in energy conservation. Why cannot the Conservative council in Swindon mimic what a Conservative council in Woking is doing? I am not sure that Swindon council is even aware of it. There is absolutely no evidence that it is on its agenda at all. Reykjavik, to take an example from Europe, is already piloting running its buses on hydrogen. When we are having a major regeneration and re-sculpting of the town centre, why cannot we find something as imaginative and visionary as that in Swindon? When Isambard Kingdom Brunel built the town, he had a wonderful far-reaching vision, which now seems to have been ignored.
	I shall conclude with an example of how difficult it is to persuade Swindon borough council to be more ambitious for the town. Nearly two years ago, I held a meeting in the House of Commons, to which I invited the then leader of Swindon borough council, its officers and various other local dignitaries, as well as a distinguished galaxy of representatives from some of our leading cultural institutions. We had an interesting lunch, in which these distinguished representatives of some of our leading, world-class institutions came up with their ideas about how to transform Swindon with a cultural vision based on lots of exciting and stimulating concepts. No one would expect the town council to take ideas away from the lunch and implement them, but with so much expertise and incalculably valuable advice being freely offered, one would expect it to explore some of those ideas.
	After the meeting, I wrote a note summarising some of the ideas that were proposed and sent it to the borough council. I asked how it would like to proceed and how I could help it, but to this day I have received no reply and, needless to say, none of the ideas has been pursued. A truly ambitious council would have taken those ideas and run with them. All the decisions facing the town now—what to do with the town centre, the new university, the redevelopment of a big site owned by the Science museum in Wroughton in the south of Swindon—desperately require a bold and ambitious vision if the town is to compete successfully with other towns in the UK and across the world.
	Time is running out, as the important decisions are being taken as we speak, and the town stands to benefit from them, but it will not necessarily be good enough. We are not ambitious or competitive enough in Swindon. I am desperately worried that, unless the borough council wakes up now and realises that it is competing throughout the world with similar towns that are ambitious and competitive in their approach to the great challenges of the future, our prosperity may soon become a distant memory.

David Evennett: I am pleased to be able to participate in this Whitsun recess Adjournment debate and to raise some important issues that are of major concern to my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford. Those mainly concern crime, antisocial behaviour, vandalism, graffiti, juvenile drunkenness, gangs and the availability of knives across the constituency—in fact, across the borough of Bexley.
	Those problems, which mainly affect town centres in our borough and in my constituency, particularly Bexleyheath, Crayford and Welling, have spread to residential areas. There is an increasing problem—an epidemic—which is the No. 1 concern of residents in our borough of Bexley. People feel that not enough care and consideration are being given to those issues by national Government and that their quality of life is being affected.
	The police, the national Government and the recently defeated Bexley council all said that they were concerned and talked a lot about the issues, but people locally feel threatened by behaviour of the sort I am describing—in the streets, the shopping centres and their homes—and that the Government have not addressed it.
	The Prime Minister raised the respect agenda, but many in my area feel that it is just another gimmick. We have two good local free-sheet newspapers. This week, one, the  Bexley Extra, has a headline "Boy, 15, Stabbed Opposite Church". The other, the  News Shopper, has a headline "Teenage Rampage: Knife-Wielding Youths Riot on the Streets". Those are the things that worry and anger people in the borough of Bexley.
	I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), particularly the first part, which was about Hackney and the knives and the culture there. I endorse an awful lot of what she said, because we have the same in south-east London. It has already spread out, as she highlighted, to the suburbs, where there is great concern of a similar nature to that which she raised. I commend her views on the fact that we need things for the young people to do, role models and so forth. She made an important point and I am grateful to be able to follow that part of her speech.
	I was also interested in remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who is no longer in his place. He thinks that the Government are out of touch with what people on the ground feel about those issues. People feel that there is endless talk and no solutions. While there are certain areas of great improvement—we accept that there are more police and more community support officers—there is still fear of crime among people and concern about the consequences for their lives. It needs to be addressed much more seriously by the Government.
	On the doorstep in the recent local election campaign, one reason for the unpopular Labour council being soundly defeated at the polls in Bexley was that people felt it had not addressed those issues of local concern. Of course, other issues were involved, such as the huge council tax increase of 40 per cent. over the last four years, which did not help. The Conservative campaign looked at positive policies to deal with those issues of disorder, crime and antisocial behaviour.
	When I was a Member of the House 10 years ago we were concerned about other issues, such as noise nuisance, neighbour disputes and lack of concern. I was heavily involved in the peace and quiet campaign, which one of my constituents, Val Weedon, did so much to lead. The campaign is now called the Noise Association. We managed to get some action taken—action to raise awareness and to get environmental health officers, housing associations and central Government to realise that quality of life issues matter.
	The quality of life issues at that time were noise nuisance, inconsiderate neighbours, bad behaviour and so forth, but now we have moved on. In our area, there is intimidation, graffiti and fear of groups. That is a tremendous worry for all sorts of people. Pensioners in particular no longer want to go out in the evening.
	Bexleyheath has some good restaurants and pubs, as well as bingo and all sorts of interesting evening entertainment, but pensioners are frightened to go out because of the gangs, the youths and the drunkenness. Of course, the Government's new licensing laws have not made that easier. In Bexleyheath, binge drinking has increased and has become a culture. I am afraid that gangs of truants from school are also around during the daytime, intimidating pensioners on buses. There are many serious issues in the borough that are causing concern.
	I want to mention a few areas where there have been particular difficulties. The Hadlow road area ofSt. Michael's ward has had seven years of unrelenting problems with youths on bikes and motorbikes, and of incidents involving damage to plants and other features in people's front gardens. The police and the ward's newly elected councillors are looking to have a police station in a local shop to provide a police presence. One of the problems in the past has been the inability of the police to respond, as they have been diverted to other areas of the borough or into town when a need arose. Local people have therefore been without their local neighbourhood police.
	However, with community safety partnerships and community teams of police officers and community support officers in each of the wards, the picture is not all negative. I know that the Deputy Leader of the House will take note of the fact that we have had more police and community support officers. We must make sure, however, that they are dedicated to the wards in question and that they deal with the problems there, rather than being diverted elsewhere, as in the past. I hope that the residents of Hadlow road and its environs will see an improvement in the near future with the rolling-out of the neighbourhood teams.
	Hampton House in Colyers ward is a troubled area where people feel insecure when the pubs empty late at night, leading to a lot of noise and nuisance, especially involving youngsters who are sometimes, regrettably, under-age. Residents have their doors or windows knocked on by people passing. While none of that is criminal, it is a quality of life issue, as people feel intimidated. Young mothers, families with young children or pensioners find such situations distressing, and more police need to be visible on the beat throughout the day and particularly in the evening.
	Bexleyheath is a great centre and has facilities not just for pensioners but for many parts of the community. However, gangs of youths milling around are still a problem, and they sometimes come quite a distance, because, as we know, when a town has decent pubs or clubs, it attracts a lot of people. By the same token, there must be the transport to get those people home. Regrettably, as we have not been given the right number of buses and other transport facilities to get people home, the trouble carries on.
	Recently, Crayford town centre, which is not an area that has had problems before, has suffered from gangs having car rallies or races around the local car parks. Again, that is intimidating and worrying and creates noise and nuisance. It frightens residents and causes disturbance in the evenings in a nice, quiet town. One could go on about such concerns. There has been wanton damage to parked cars in certain areas. Those issues must be addressed. The area now has an excellent new council under Conservative control, and Councillor Ian Clement, who is very much a community man, has already considered certain measures that he wants to implement.
	I am sure that both the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) agree that we should adopt a zero-tolerance approach. We should say that we will not put up with the current situation, and that a range of measures are needed to deal with it. We may need more parenting courses, because parenting is a difficult task in today's society. It is difficult to bring up children when there are so many pressures on individuals, including children. Of course we want parents to be responsible for their children, but what is so worrying is that sometimes they do not know where their children are. My wife and I regularly tried to find out where our children were when they were teenagers. That was very important to us: we cared. I often had to rush home from here to pick up my son from some party, or rave, or whatever it might be.

Charles Walker: You should have joined in.

David Evennett: I am a child of the sixties. I liked Motown and Dusty Springfield. That was in a different age, though.
	We also need the police to be more user-friendly. In the past, people have been unable to contact them because a mobile phone is not answered or they cannot get through to the police station. Bexley is fortunate in having a good police force under Robin Merrett, who is doing a tremendous job, but it is vital that people can contact the police when they need to. When they feel concerned because there are yobs outside, for instance, they should be able to contact their community policeman. They should be able to find someone at the end of a telephone line to whom they can talk.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington: we must ensure that there are things for youngsters to do. It is no good telling them what to do, because those of us who are a bit older had different interests and wanted to do different things when we were growing up. They need to be consulted. Bexleyheath has a first-class dance centre and a youth centre where people work tremendously hard, offering kick-boxing and many kinds of sport, but there are not enough centres such as that. There are not enough different opportunities for youngsters to do something constructive rather than milling around in groups, possibly drinking.
	We need less talk and more action. Under our last Labour council there were endless committee meetings, talks and discussions. As I have often said, I would sit around with a large number of police officers and councillors who would be put to better use doing something constructive, such as going out on to the streets and looking after the community. We need fewer committees, and more action.

Andrew Selous: Young people in my constituency have told me that they have not been terribly impressed by the Government's focus on the importance of "learning outcomes" from youth activities. Does my hon. Friend agree that young people who take advantage of youth services want to relax, have fun and engage with their friends? They do more than enough learning during the week at school.

David Evennett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The point about life is that it should be varied. We should have opportunities to relax and enjoy sport, for instance, without thinking about learning outcomes, which are complete nonsense—and I speak as a former teacher. I consider learning to be very important.

Andrew Selous: At school.

David Evennett: Yes, at school.
	We need determination and, obviously, a visible police force, but something else is needed. Bexley is a great place: it is the second safest borough in London. That is only comparative, however. It is no good pointing out that it is the second safest borough if people in it are feeling frightened or threatened. We must be realistic. We must accept that there are problems locally, and that antisocial behaviour has consequences such as lack of concern, lack of respect, crime and criminal damage. We have heard often in the House in recent days that crime is not as bad as it was, but crime in Bexley increased by 6 per cent. last year, which is not impressive.
	I welcome the opportunity to raise these issues today, which are of great concern to my constituents. I accept that the Government have done some things to address them, but they have done an awful lot of talking, as well. There is a lot more to be done to improve the quality of life in our borough.

Lyn Brown: I want to discuss the case of a constituent of mine. Earlier this year,Mr. Singh came to my surgery to discuss his long-running dispute with Thames Water about the installation of a water meter at his property and the subsequent enormous rise in his family's water charges. He told me that Thames Water was not given permission to install the meter, and that it gave him the impression in previous correspondence that a meter would enable him to save money on his water bills. That has not happened. Since the fitting of the water meter, Mr. Singh's water charges have risen excessively: from £159 per annum—the current rateable value for his house—to £469 per annum, which is an increase of almost 300 per cent.
	Mr. Singh's is not a wealthy household in the home counties. There is no huge lawn to water or a swimming pool. His is a small household, consisting of only two adults and one child. The family tell me that they have always been very conservative in their use of water. They have no dishwasher, seldom run their appliances and try to make the most effective use of water by waiting a week before doing their washing. Since installation of the water meter, their usage has had to drop even further as they try to reduce their bills to manageable levels—but to no effect. With mounting bills, they now restrict themselves to the absolute minimum level of water consumption. They are genuinely afraid to turn on their taps and appliances, for fear of a further rise in the water bill. Certainly, since the meter was installed their water bills have trebled, while their already low usage has decreased. Clearly, there is a problem somewhere.
	In response to Mr. Singh's complaints, I wrote to the chief executive of Thames Water to express my and my constituent's concerns about the water supply, and to request Thames Water's assistance in investigating and diagnosing the error that was clearly occurring. I also asked whether it could provide Mr. Singh with the leak detection and repair service that it claims to offer its customers. I know that the House will be surprised and somewhat dismayed to learn that as of this morning, I have received only an acknowledgment of my letter of 17 March. Perhaps it is not just water that is leaking from Thames Water's pipes.
	We need to remember that Thames Water is the only privatised water company in England and Wales that continues to fail to meet its Ofwat targets for acceptable levels of leakages from its pipe system; indeed, it has failed to meet them for the past five years. I acknowledge that Thames Water has inherited some of the worst and oldest water pipes in the country, and that it is not easy to access and fix London's underground pipes, but the Ofwat targets are not excessive. Thames Water's own estimate of water leaked per year has in fact risen: from 688 million litres a day in 2000-01 to 915 million litres a day in 2004-05. That accounted for approximately a quarter of all the water leaked throughout England and Wales.
	Let me be more specific. Each day, 915 million litres of precious water leak of out Thames Water's pipes. That amounts to 10,590 litres of water wasted per second. One third of the total amount piped into the water distribution system is lost.
	I accept that totally eliminating water leakage is not economically practical, but Thames Water is not doing enough. Instead of concentrating its efforts and resources on reducing the waste of an increasingly precious and vital national resource, Thames Water could be accused of concentrating on squeezing further profits out of its customers. Instead of making its supply network as reliable and efficient as is practically possible, it focuses its considerable efforts on persuading householders to accept the installation of water meters, while also raising prices in an effort to reduce demand and ensure that it is able to fund dividend payments to its shareholders. Those dividend payments have been at least £130 million a year for the past six years.
	I fear that Thames Water's actions will have the effect of pricing many people out of the hygienic use and consumption of water. Should that continue, it may result in a public health problem. Let us remember that consumers of water have no realistic option to change their supplier if they are unhappy with the service provided, the cost charged or quality of product. The Government have already recognised fuel poverty as a real issue that affects many low-income households across the UK, and the prospect of compulsory water meters raises the prospect of water poverty.
	Despite the miserable weather that we have had this week, the south-east appears to be entering a period of drought. We are beginning to see hosepipe bans and hearing talk of drought orders being enforced. Water customers are being asked to restrict their usage, while enormous quantities of water are wasted by inefficient infrastructure. Surely something can be done to pressure water companies to increase their renewal and improvement of the pipe network. Let us remember that those companies have a statutory responsibility to supply water to their paying customers. Why should customers accept conservation measures that assist a private profit-making company which seems more interested in returning profits to its investors than in fixing leaks that waste such enormous amounts of clean, precious water?
	The case of Mr. Singh raises concerns about our water companies in general, and Thames Water in particular. It is their responsibility to provide an acceptable level of service to all their customers who, I repeat, have no alternative water supplier. How can Thames Water justify relying on customers to reduce their consumption while allowing a third of the water supply to leak out of its pipes? And how can it be right to promote water metering when it hits the poorest households in this country hardest, and risks pricing low-income households out of the opportunity to use fresh, clean water in 21st century London?
	As water becomes a more scarce resource, it must surely be the right time for further Government measures to improve regulation of the water industry. The water industry must get its own house in order before it can lecture its paying customers on what they should be doing to solve this crisis. The water companies must remember that they are not only there to look after the interests of their shareholders: they must balance that with the interests of the public they are there to serve.

Alan Reid: I wish to take the opportunity today to raise a few constituency issues. I represent a large rural constituency, so transport is a key issue and will be the theme of all the issues that I shall raise. Faced with the threat of global warming and climate change, we need to use the taxation system to change people's behaviour and encourage them to use more public transport where it is available.
	However, public transport is not a practical solution in many very remote areas. We need a road pricing system that allows us to vary charges, so that it would cost more to drive in congested areas where there are public transport alternatives but a lot less to drive in very remote areas where there is no alternative. Using potholed, single-track roads should cost a lot less than using busy motorways.
	It is obvious that road pricing is still quite a few years away. Until it can be introduced, we need to modify the present vehicle taxation system to take account of the fact that some parts of the country have public transport alternatives while others do not.
	I want to talk about vehicle excise duty and fuel duty. There is a strong argument for a lower rate of VED in rural areas to compensate for the lack of public transport alternatives. People would still pay fuel duty according to how much they use their cars, but they should be compensated by paying less in VED, which at present is a fixed charge. Moreover, we should charge a lower rate of duty on fuel sold at remote petrol stations. That would require an EU derogation that several other member states have already received. Britain did not oppose that, and I urge the Government to apply for the same derogation in respect of very remote areas in this country.
	I shall give an example of why we need that derogation. Petrol sold at pumps on the islands of Mull and Islay costs about 15p or 20p more per litre than it does in big cities. The irony is that people who live in areas where they have to drive long distances, and where there is no public transport alternative, have to pay far more for fuel than do people who have to drive only short distances and who have alternatives. That is hardly fair, and a more equitable tax system would introduce lower fuel duties for a few very remote parts of our country.
	Ideally, people should be able to use public transport instead of having to rely on their cars. The Government's policy is supposed to be to encourage people to do so, so it is a scandal that Royal Mail, a Government agency, should be withdrawing postbus services in my constituency. In the past month, it has announced the withdrawal of those services between Dunoon and Tighnabruaich, between Inveraray and Dalmally, and between Lochgilphead and Inveraray.
	That is bizarre. A Royal Mail van has to travel those routes every day in any case, and the postbus service was based on the fact that passengers could be carried at no extra cost or damage to the environment.
	The reasons that Royal Mail has given for the decision are also a bit strange. It has said that it is ending the postbus service on the Dunoon-Tighnabruaich route because it was too popular, but that the other two routes have been closed because they were not popular enough. We do not seem to be able to win—if Royal Mail wants to end a service, it will find a reason.
	Royal Mail has said that the Government's move earlier this year to open up postal services to full competition means that it has to concentrate all its efforts on its core business—collecting, sorting and delivering mail—in order to survive. That is not joined-up government: surely all Government owned bodies have a duty to follow Government policy, which is to promote social inclusion and the protection of the environment. Clearly, it is a social inclusion matter if people are trapped in their homes because they cannot travel.
	I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to speak to his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and urge them to intervene by telling Royal Mail to keep its postbus services.

Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman should speak to the Transport Minister in the Scottish Parliament.

Alan Reid: Royal Mail is a reserved power, and the responsibility of the Government here. The Scottish Parliament's Transport Minister has no control over it.
	I urge Ministers to change Royal Mail's remit. All Government-owned bodies should have a social and environmental remit, as well as a remit to carry out their core business and balance the books.
	I am concerned about the Post Office side of the Royal Mail. The planned withdrawal of the post office card account in 2010 will threaten the viability of thousands of rural post offices. I urge the Government to think again. The Government have also hurt post offices by taking away the TV licence business, encouraging motorists to renew their vehicle excise duty through the internet rather than at post offices, and by refusing to allow the Post Office to bid for the contract for conducting new passport interviews. They seem determined to close thousands of rural post offices, which will certainly be the result if those policies are not changed. The Government should be giving business opportunities to post offices instead of driving them away. Post offices fulfil an important economic and social role in rural communities and we cannot afford to lose them.
	I referred to passport interviews. From the end of this year people applying for their first passport need to attend for an interview. The Government promised that nobody would need to travel for more than an hour to attend. From the proposals published by the Passport Office, for the highlands and islands that looks like being yet another broken Government promise. In my constituency the Government are opening a new passport office in Oban and there will be a set of satellite offices with webcam links to the main office, so that people can be interviewed down the webcam. Given the set of offices proposed it will be impossible for many of my constituents to reach the nearest office or webcam link within an hour, certainly using normal modes of transport, and I am sure that the Government will not be providing helicopters.
	It is interesting that in setting the one hour limit, the Government were anticipating that everybody would use a car. Certainly it would take several hours by public transport to reach those offices. Even with a car, it will be impossible for people in villages on the west coast, such as Tayvallich and Achnamara, to drive within an hour to the nearest passport interview centre in either Oban or Campbeltown.

Norman Lamb: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Post Office tried to tender for the contract to operate as passport offices, but was denied the opportunity to do so, denying local people the chance of a local facility for renewing their passport? Does my hon. Friend agree that that seems crazy, given what is happening to the post office network?

Alan Reid: My hon. Friend is right and he anticipates my speech. I was going to mention that very fact later on. Obviously, nearly everybody lives well within an hour's journey from a post office, so the answer was to conduct the interview at the post office. That would have the double benefit of being easy for people to reach and providing the Post Office network with a valuable source of income. That is what the Government should have done, if they had wanted to keep to their promise that people would be required to make a journey lasting no more than an hour.
	People on Iona will have no chance of travelling for an interview within an hour, but there is no proposal for an office there. Travelling by car and ferry to the nearest office on Mull will take well over an hour. People who live in towns and villages on the Gareloch or on the east side of Loch Long are expected to travel to the main passport office in Glasgow—a journey that will take more than an hour. The journey to Glasgow by train, taking into account the time to reach the nearest station, will take over an hour. Given the state of Glasgow traffic, driving into the centre will take over an hour. I urge the Minister to take this information back to his colleagues in the Home Office. The Passport Office certainly needs to reconsider the proposed network of offices in the highlands and islands.
	Although at present only people applying for their first passport need attend for interview, if the Government get their way and introduce compulsory identity cards, people renewing their passports after 2010—if the election is delayed until then—will have to do so, too. Everybody will need to attend such offices if the Government get their way.
	I have concerns about the Government's proposals for a private finance initiative contract for the joint search and rescue helicopter service, which at present is operated extremely efficiently by the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. It is a vital service that saves people's lives and it works well. Rescue services are not a suitable candidate for privatisation, so I urge the Government to think again. If something is working well, why change it?
	Another concern is the proposed competitive tender for ferry services currently operated by Caledonian MacBrayne. The tender was forced on the Scottish Executive by European rules, but deficiencies in UK employment law mean that the tendering process will not be fair, and I urge the Government to look into them. UK employment law does not give seafarers the same rights as workers on land. The minimum wage does not apply to services outwith UK internal waters, which are not the same as territorial waters; internal waters are mainly river estuaries. Caledonian MacBrayne pays more than the minimum wage, but the rules do not apply to services from the Scottish mainland to most of the islands. The PFI opens up the possibility that a foreign-registered company could win the contract and although TUPE—Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—would protect existing staff, the company could easily replace them as they leave over time with people employed on less than the minimum wage. There is clearly a loophole in the law.
	There is another loophole in respect of vessels sailing in UK territorial waters. If the employing company is based outside the UK and does not operate in the UK, it can avoid employers' national insurance contributions. I do not understand why the Chancellor allows that loophole to continue, as he is clearly losing revenue. It also means that if Caledonian MacBrayne is to have any chance of winning the contract it will be forced to transfer all its employees to an offshore company based outwith the UK, perhaps in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. As well as the loss to the Treasury, UK rules, such as those on the minimum wage, will not apply.
	I urge the Government to look into the matter. I do not understand why seafarers sailing on routes that are entirely within UK territorial waters do not have the same employment protections as workers on land.
	The next issue I want to raise is the switchover from analogue to digital television. It is an exciting opportunity that opens up tremendous prospects, but we must be aware of the problems for many vulnerable people. I am pleased that the Government have promised to help such people, but under current proposals that help will have to come from the BBC licence fee, which is not an appropriate vehicle. The licence fee is a poll tax and whereas it is right for it to be used for the provision of BBC services, support for vulnerable people during switchover is a social need, which the Government should meet through general taxation. The BBC has proposed an increase in the licence fee to £180 in a few years if those costs are forced on it. That is excessive and I urge the Government to reconsider the matter.
	I hope that the Minister will consider the issues that I have raised and that there will be Government action on them.

Diana Johnson: I have been interested to hear what all hon. Members have said today. In particular, I was struck by the comments that hon. Members have made about health care in their constituencies. It has been said that Labour Members—or at least Ministers—seem to be living in a parallel universe. My experience of the NHS in my home city of Hull is very positive. Just one example is a recent visit that I paid to the Hull and East Yorkshire eye hospital. A consultant told me that the time between his seeing a person who needs a cataract operation and his operating on them is now nine days. That is in marked contrast to the months and months that people had to wait in the past.
	I am also aware of the local improvement finance trust projects in my constituency—taking place through the NHS and private finance—to build community-based NHS facilities to replace some of the old-fashioned facilities that we had in the past. Hull's NHS services have been chronically underfunded for many years, so I am delighted at the investment that has gone in since 1997 and I can certainly see that coming to fruition. When I talk to my constituents, they cannot speak highly enough of the NHS.
	My theme today is health and, in particular, the wider agenda in relation to public health. I am delighted that we have had many opportunities to talk about public health since I arrived in the House. We took a historic vote on smoking in public places and I was delighted that so many Members backed the ban. I was also delighted that a new Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), introduced the Children's Food Bill in the private Members' ballot. I am delighted that several of the Bill's proposals were adopted by the Government, but there is still more to do. Yesterday, I was pleased to see the Third Reading of the Education and Inspections Bill, which contains provisions relating to nutritional standards in all our schools.
	All those measures added together show that the Government are committed to the public health agenda. I want to talk specifically about the public health agenda in my home city of Hull. I am saddened to say that the Liberal Democrats in my home city are taking retrograde steps when it comes to improving the public health of the people of Hull. I will put the matter in context. The National Obesity Forum recently produced some figures showing that more than a quarter of English secondary school children are clinically obese. That is almost double the proportion from a decade ago. The National Obesity Forum says that a "public health time-bomb" is in the making because children who are obese in their early teens are twice as likely to die by the age of 50.
	I am interested in that because Hull has some poor health statistics. We are high up in the cancer league tables. The number of teenage pregnancies has been high. Our educational achievements have not been as good as they should have been. Our housing stock is not as good as it could be. The unemployment situation has not been as good as it could be, although obviously it has got better in recent years. For all those reasons, the council, the NHS in Hull, and the voluntary and community sector are thinking carefully about what they can do collectively to improve the health of young people and children in our primary schools.
	By the time Jamie Oliver took up the issue of healthy school meals, Hull was already ahead of the game. People in Hull had sat down quite a while ago and looked at some proposals in relation to the excellence in cities schemes, education action zones and the children's fund moneys that were available. Breakfast clubs had been set up in schools and fruit had been provided. Things were thus already happening, but Hull was unique because it took the bold step of deciding to introduce healthy free school meals for all children in our primary schools.
	Hull could do that because of the Education Act 2002, which allows local authorities to go to the Department for Education and Skills and ask to change and innovate, if they think that they can make a real difference in their communities. Hull city council approached the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and he agreed that we could innovate. The idea of free healthy school meals for all pupils in our primary schools thus went ahead.
	The scheme has been an enormous success. Children have started to eat much more healthy lunches and they are getting breakfast when they arrive at school first thing in the morning. Fruit and water are also made available during the day, so there is a whole package of measures. The university of Hull is undertaking an ongoing review to examine the effects of healthy eating in our schools. Everyone is agreed that the scheme is an innovative and exciting way of trying to tackle some of the public health problems that can start early in a child's life. If children adopt healthy eating early in life, it is likely that they will maintain it in their teenage years and adulthood.
	The cost of the scheme is about £3.8 million in 2005-06, and Hull city council has been able to bear that cost. The scheme fits in with the Chancellor's view of investing to save because I believe that such investment early in children's lives will mean that the NHS will be saved a huge amount later on because it will not have to deal with the problems of obesity, given that we all know that diabetes and cancer are more prevalent among people with weight problems.
	The scheme in Hull has won the Caroline Walker Trust award for promoting healthy eating to improve public health. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who is the Minister responsible for public health, recently visited Hull and discovered at first hand how much children are enjoying the free healthy food when she had a healthy school lunch at the Parks primary school. Hull has made it clear that it is happy and willing to share the good practice that has been developed in the city both nationally and internationally. It recently hosted an international conference to spread such good practice.
	I am bringing the matter to the House's attention because, unfortunately, the Liberal Democrat group on Hull city council has decided that it wishes to return to the policy that exists in the rest of the United Kingdom, whereby children whose parents are on certain benefits become entitled to free school meals. The Conservative leader on the council agrees with the Liberal Democrats about opting out of the innovative and exciting scheme and has said:
	"We have consistently opposed universal free meals because it perpetuates a culture of state reliance".
	That is a great shame because all hon. Members probably accept that the state has a role to support and empower people who often find it difficult to manage on their own. Since we have had free healthy school meals for all children, no one has been seen as any different and all children have enjoyed the food. The take-up rates for the healthy food have increased phenomenally.

Andrew Selous: Is the hon. Lady aware that some local authorities get round the problem that she identifies by giving the children swipe cards? If everyone has a swipe card, children who need free school meals can get them without identifying themselves as such, which lessens problems of stigma.

Diana Johnson: I do not have a problem with swipe cards, but society needs to address head-on the problems of unhealthy eating in all our communities. It is not just poorer children who eat junk food. Children from better-off families often eat it, too. They might have money available to go to Burger King, or wherever they choose to go to buy burgers or fish and chips. We need to recognise that we all have an investment in our young people getting a healthy start in life, and we should do that through healthy free school meals.

Lyn Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that giving free school meals to all school children would help to deal with those who are not entitled to them, but whose families live on low incomes? That is one way for schools to ensure that all children have a healthy start in life, and the energy and material to think and work well at school.

Diana Johnson: My hon. Friend is right and makes an important point about those children whose families are just above the benefit level.
	On the alliance that has formed in the city of Hull between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories, in the recent local elections, the Leader of the Opposition talked about "Vote blue, get green," but in Hull it is "Vote yellow, get blue." That is how it is in Hull these days. The lack of vision shared by the Liberal Democrats and the Tories—the lack of insight into what joined-up thinking can do to change the long-term health of one of our poorest communities—is a disgrace.
	In the statement on pensions, the Liberal Democrats made lots of comments on how they disapprove of means-testing. I was struck by how ironic it is that they take the view that they do in the city of Hull. Perhaps that is indicative of the franchised approach that they take to national Government and local government. The two do not seem to marry.
	If Hull loses the pilot scheme, we will not have the hard evidence that will come out of the project if it continues for the full three years and beyond, and we will not see the changes that can be made. Professor Derek Colquhoun of Hull university's centre for education studies is involved in looking at the project and giving an opinion on how well it is doing. He says:
	"The data so far tells us that take up of school lunches among Hull's primary school children has gone up massively, from36 per cent. to 64 per cent., since being offered free to all. This is significant as eating a healthy lunch is vitally important to improving health and educational achievement."
	According to researchers, early indications are that children's readiness to learn is already improving. That is certainly my experience of talking to teachers in primary schools. They have seen a real change in the behaviour and willingness to learn of some of the young people in their classes.
	John Dickie, head of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, is a leading participant in the campaign for free school meals. He says:
	"The lesson emerging from Hull is that improving the quality of school meals in itself is not enough. To really boost healthy eating in school the free provision of school lunches to all children is essential."
	He goes on to call for Scottish Ministers to listen to the facts and follow what is happening in Hull.

Alan Reid: The hon. Lady mentioned Scotland. Is she aware that her colleagues in the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament voted against free school meals? The Labour party is not universally in favour of free school meals for everybody.

Diana Johnson: I am speaking on behalf of my constituency and the decision of the Labour council to introduce an innovative project and pilot to see whether we can achieve the benefits that all the agencies involved—the primary care trusts, the local authorities, and the voluntary and community sector—think will happen if it is seen through. Hull is leading the way. It is a great shame if we cannot get cross-party consensus that the pilot should carry on. We can learn a lot from Hull. It has led the way on a number of things. I could go through the list, but I will not. The Liberal Democrat council has not introduced a motion in full council, but it has certainly suggested that it will try to force through a return to means-tested school meals for children whose families are on benefits. That is a great pity, and the Liberal Democrats should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Bob Spink: Following last year's report by the Science and Technology Committee on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, a number of issues have still to be resolved. First, when will the Department of Health release its report on the reform of the outdated Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990? When will a joint Committee of both Houses report on the scientific, medical and social changes relating to abortion since 1967? Despite huge advances in the scientific understanding of foetal development and serious abuses of the Abortion Act 1967, there is no mechanism to protect the foetus.
	It is nearly 40 years since the 1967 Act was passed and science has made tremendous advances. Public opinion has changed, partly as a result of huge improvements in the imaging of the unborn child. Parliament is not reluctant to grapple with the issue. A communications research survey showed that nine in 10 MPs want the abortion law to be reviewed continuously in the light of advances in medical science. There is a political will to act—in the last election, all three party leaders called for a review of the timing of abortion—so why has action not been taken? Should we wait cynically for the next election? Are human life and dignity to be held so cheap?
	Thirdly, animal-human hybrids and chimeras are not science fiction. They have crept up on an unsuspecting and unwelcoming public, and have caused worldwide concern. Indeed, the issue was raised in the European Parliament last week. The Donaldson report of 2000 stated that those creations are not covered by the 1990 Act, and rightly recommended prohibition. However, some people at the HFEA and the Department of Health want to legalise them for research purposes. Dark forces are plotting to make animal-human hybrids and chimeras acceptable. In its consultation on the 1990 Act, the Department of Health asked for views on
	"whether the law should permit the creation of human-animal hybrids or chimera embryos for research purposes only".
	The HFEA's clinical and scientific advances group and its ethics and law committee have been asked to provide advice on the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos for research. I dispute the right of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to provide advice on animal eggs and non-gamete human cells or to become involved in non-fertility matters. As its name suggests, its remit extends only to human gametes and embryos. It is not empowered to play with such monstrous propositions. It would be dangerous to extend its remit, because it is an undemocratic, unaccountable and self-interested body. It is time that the House brought those three supremely important issues—indeed, they are issues of life itself—under democratic control. I urge the Minister to pass that message on to the Prime Minister and the Department of Health, and to obtain answers on those three points.
	In my constituency, much is happening. A major proposal to import a full 5 per cent. of the national energy requirement would result in ships on the Thames transhipping gas via Canvey island to provide energy for the national grid. My local paper said that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was encouraging
	"planning officers to consider the crucial national benefit of such schemes and to look at Britain's urgent need for gas, as well as local people's concerns."
	He appeared to be putting improper pressure on our local authority, and in some ways trying to bypass the usual planning procedures. That caused great public concern.
	I respectfully say to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a good man, three things. First, we can accept no increase whatever in risk for Canvey people. Secondly, the matter must be brought to a public inquiry at the earliest possible moment—that is, immediately the council rejects it. Finally, we should do and say nothing that might increase the blight of our beautiful island, Canvey island, and of people's homes on that island.
	I turn to the problem of antisocial behaviour. Castle Point has great kids. They are hardworking, they have great integrity, they are honourable, and their parents and our community as a whole can be enormously proud of them. They are our future, but they are spoiled by a few yobs who, fuelled by drink and with growing-up difficulties like we all had, cause mayhem for our community. They are making life for individuals miserable and intolerable.
	Canvey island is plagued by antisocial behaviour and worse, especially in the King George park area. Groups or gangs of 50, sometimes 100 and, in recent weeks, 150 kids have been gathering together, showing off and causing mayhem. Cars have been badly damaged and one, I believe, written off. Fences and walls have been vandalised. There have been serious fights in the street and people have been hurt. Whole neighbourhoods feel under siege, businesses are hit hard and are suffering, the town centre is becoming a no-go area for decent people, and quality of life is being destroyed.
	People feel intimidated, traumatised and afraid. People are standing in their front gardens late on a Friday night to try and ward off these gangs of youths. That is intolerable. It should not be happening. An evil racial element has again—it happened a few years ago—crept in, and must certainly be stopped.
	I have been there personally on four of the past five weekends. I was there last Friday and it was pretty bad. I observed many kids with drink in their hands. I was there on Saturday. It was less bad then—not too bad at all. I patrolled the streets with the police on Saturday night, and I pay tribute to them. They are doing a difficult job in difficult circumstances. If they had better resources, they could do the job better. I pay particular tribute to Kevin Diable-White of Essex police, who is trying to organise the defence of the community and to find long-term solutions to the problem. He is doing a good job.
	The statutory responsibility lies with the council and the police force. Things were very bad on Canvey island 18 months ago and a curfew order was introduced. That quietened things down, the situation improved and the curfew order was lifted. I complained at the time. Since the curfew order has been lifted, things have become much worse very quickly. Now we must get tough in Castle Point.
	We need zero tolerance of yobs. We need to bring back the curfew order and try dispersal orders. The police must attend residents' 999 calls without exception and without excuse. That is not happening at present. The police must use my under-age drinking law more. Sadly, that is the most used law in the country, apart from road traffic regulations. On every occasion that the police use the law to remove drink from under-age children, they should use the whole of the law, which gives them the duty to bring in the parents and involve them. They must let the parents know what the kids are doing, so that the parents can understand and take responsibility and so that, where appropriate, the police can impose parenting contracts.
	The council needs to provide decent facilities for all our kids. That may not stop the bad ones, but it will take the decent ones away from the action. All this must be done in close co-ordination with the community. As a sort of knee-jerk reaction, a teen shelter has been suggested for the King George park. Residents are extremely concerned about that. Any such decision must be made with the community rather than being inopportunely imposed on it in a way that simply exacerbates matters.
	I called for a meeting of the local council, police and residents so that we can again listen carefully to residents. That should be a good start in tackling the problems, but the solutions will take a long time to develop and put in place.
	Nationally, we need a deeper understanding of the cause of, and sustainable solutions for, antisocial behaviour. We cannot dismiss the fact that some kids are simply bad and need tough lessons. Of course, it cannot be denied that the prime responsibility lies with the parents, although it is difficult when there is only one. We all accept that sometimes parents can do their best and still experience problems with their kids. The Government must accept some blame for the increasing problems. Their reluctance to allow proper discipline from the earliest age has not been without consequence.
	The over-focus on children's rights rather than their responsibilities from a young age is an increasing problem. The roll-out of the Government's Sure Start programme, with inadequate evidence of its impact on families, children and developing antisocial behaviour, is a specific example of bad Government policy. Another Government policy of getting mothers back to work and denigrating the role of the housewife may have wide and as yet unrecognised consequences for society. That is all part of the Government's politically correct agenda, and provides a backdrop against which the growth in antisocial behaviour occurs.
	My local council on Canvey island and the mainland has been negligent because it has failed to provide and maintain a decent range of facilities for young and older children. It has removed children's play areas, forcing children, from six to 16, on to the streets and into culs-de-sac to play football and congregate simply because they do not have a park. At 4 o'clock, I have a meeting in Central Lobby with the Heritage Lottery Fund about providing two new parks for my area. One would go well in the Woodside area in Benfleet. I hope that I can make some progress on that. I will, of course, stay for the next speech.
	Castle Point is a great community but we are suffering infrastructure breakdown. We experience massive and intolerable congestion on our local roads, overcrowding on our rail line and serious flooding, water, sewage and air quality problems. Residents cannot get their children into their local schools. Some live next door to a school but cannot get their children into it. Two schoolchildren who have lived in my constituency for nine months still go to school in Dagenham. That is ridiculous. What do those responsible do about it? They plan to build 1,000 more houses without any infrastructure. Our green land is under constant threat. We want local councillors to stand up for the residents, not be apologists for the developers or the Deputy Prime Minister.
	We need new access to Canvey island and a new terminus railway station. Let me make a small but indicative local point: we need decent public toilet provision throughout the borough. The public toilets were closed without consultation. The council has changed its policy only after massive pressure from the public and press. It has done a U-turn—perhaps I should say a U-bend. It is beginning to reinstate the decent public toilet provision and disabled access that it took away. That is especially needed by elderly and vulnerable people. Perhaps we think that it is a light matter and we can laugh and joke about it, but it is serious for many people in our communities. I congratulate the  Yellow Advertiser and especially Paul Peterson, who fought for decent toilets. The council should, as a gesture of good will, ask Paul Peterson of the  Yellow Advertiser to open officially the new disabled access toilets that his fight has forced it to provide.
	On a much more serious and fundamental issue, our democracy and election processes are held to be precious, but they have been damaged in Castle Point. It should be for the people, not for a small group with its own secret agenda, to decide who should represent them, and who should make vital decisions on planning, or on the sale—or the suggested giveaway—of major public assets, or on the award of contracts. Such decisions should be taken transparently in the council chamber, not in smoke-filled back rooms by a self-selected group of elected and unelected individuals. This is quite a sinister development. The public know about it, however—hence the extraordinary Castle Point election result last month, in which the Conservatives lost five of the six seats that they fought on Canvey Island. They were all safe Conservative seats in an area in which, in stark contrast, those same local people gave me the second biggest swing achieved by any Tory against Labour at the general election last year. If that swing had been replicated across the country, we would be sitting on the other side of the House today.
	There is a clear message here. The people understand what is going on and they demand action from the authorities who are in control, including the Director of Public Prosecutions, whom I mentioned in the House earlier. I was emphatically elected by the people of Castle Point to deal openly and properly with these difficult matters on their behalf, and to stand above party political interests in defending our democracy and fighting for what is right. I can readily accept councillors criticising me for speaking out, but I will not stand by and do nothing. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
	In Castle Point, our democracy has been abused. Our council and great political structures have been brought into public disrepute, and we must take action to regain public respect and trust. Writing in the  Evening Echo newspaper this week, Tony Burnell sagely said:
	"I have long advocated that politics should be taken from local government."
	I have long agreed with that.

Andrew Selous: I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) that if he has constituents or anyone else waiting for him, I shall take no offence if he chooses to go to be with them now.
	We have had our usual interesting debate on a wide range of issues this afternoon. Health and antisocial behaviour matters have been to the fore, although housing, transport and urban planning issues have also been raised, among others. I want to focus exclusively on education, however, and on what is going on in our schools, and I make no apology for doing so in a week in which the Education and Inspections Bill has dominated the proceedings of the House.
	The first issue that I want to consider is the provision of schooling for children with special needs. I am aware that the Education and Skills Committee is undertaking a report on this important subject, and we look forward with great interest to reading its findings when they are put before the House. In almost five years in the House, I have noticed a real increase in the number of people coming to my surgeries to tell me that their children are on the autistic spectrum or that they have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or any one of a range of learning difficulties. I have discovered from talking to other hon. Members across the House that this is a common theme.
	There has been a real increase in the number of children with some form of learning difficulty having problems in accessing the curriculum properly, and this is a matter of great concern for Members on both sides of the House. I remember when the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) was the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, he made a statement to the House on the subject. He expressed his concern at the way in which parents had to battle through the system to get the right provision for their children.
	It is obviously deeply distressing for a parent to have a child with some form of learning difficulty or special educational needs, and schools need to do their very best to cope with those requirements. We have a system that fairly routinely forces parents to spend huge amounts of money to represent themselves, and it can take an enormous time—in some cases, many years—to get a proper resolution. When there are considerable differences in the type of provision available in different local authority areas, I think that there is great cause for concern. Particularly in view of how long it takes some parents to sort the issues out, we must remember that children have only one chance, and that if they miss vital years of their education without getting the right support, that is very wrong indeed.
	As for the costs, I know of some parents who have spent up to £5,000 or £6,000 fighting and presenting their case to the local authority in order to get the right type of education for their children. I shall mention one specific case in my constituency. I have spoken to the parent, who is happy for me to discuss her case, which has recently been flagged up on the BBC education website. The parent, Michelle Chambers, has a six-year-old daughter with severe speech and language difficulties. Although the daughter is six, she has the language ability of a three-year-old child. When her mother recently accessed the school records, she was concerned to find out that her daughter had had to be physically removed from classrooms or restrained or taken to different parts of the school on some 37 different occasions between 13 January and21 March.
	I am concerned about several aspects of that case. The parents were not automatically told what was happening by the school. I understand that the local education authority, Bedfordshire county council, fully investigated the case when it was raised by Mrs. Chambers and it tells me that the correct procedures were followed. It is worrying in itself if the national guidelines for schools mean that children can be treated in that way over such a long period without the parents being informed. That is deeply wrong and unfair to parents. If they are to be fully knowledgeable and involved in what is happening to their children at school, they must know the facts about what is going on.
	I know from talking to hon. Members throughout the House that language and speech problems can present real difficulties for many people. Part of the medical provision comes through the local primary care trust, but the principal authority for the child's education is obviously the local education authority. Time and again, it seems that there is a gap between the PCT on the one hand and the LEA on the other, often with considerable finger pointing going on between the two. I am concerned that vulnerable children are literally falling through that gap. In my own area, Bedfordshire Heartlands primary care trust has a£20 million deficit, which it has been ordered to rectify. It has recently had to remove one specialist, who provided help with speech and language training in Leighton Buzzard.
	The hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) spoke about local area agreements. When I first heard about them, I made it clear to my local authority that I would judge the success of that Government initiative on the practical basis of exactly what it would do to close the gap between the education service and the health service for these vulnerable children who have speech and language difficulties.
	Special educational needs are a very great concern. I do not think that we have it right yet, because of the fact that parents must battle for so long. There is obviously great concern about the number of special schools that have been closed recently. I was sorry that that Labour and Liberal Members were unable to back us on new clause 5 during the consideration of the Education and Inspections Bill yesterday, although it would only have ensured that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills kept special schools open unless sufficient places of the right quality were available in nearby schools. The disappearance of special provision is certainly very worrying.
	The second education issue that I want to deal with is bullying in schools. Last night I saw Dame Kelly Holmes referring to that on television. I think that she is heading a campaign this week. What has struck me recently is the great difference in practice in schools' anti-bullying policies—and I am pleased to see that the Deputy Leader of the House is agreeing with me. By law, every maintained school in the land must have an anti-bullying policy—as I know, because I am a governor of a local school—but there is all the difference in the world between a policy that is perhaps checked by the school governors who look at it, ensure that it is fine and then put it back into the file, and one that is enforced as the school's central purpose with the head teacher putting life and meaning into it.
	When children arrive in the schools with the very best practice, they are told from the very start exactly what bullying is. It is any form of behaviour that is distressing or causes anxiety to other children at the school. It is very far from just being physical. It can manifest itself in all sorts of ways and often happens outside lessons: in the corridor while waiting for a lesson, in the lunch queue or in the playground, and so on. Again, as a country we have not really got to grips with bullying in schools. I should like children, perhaps at the end of each year, to write down confidentially and anonymously their experiences of what bullying was like in the school. Perhaps that way, the school and the LEA would have some idea of what was really going on, and the head teacher and the governors could be presented with that information.
	I should like to commend a school in my constituency—Vandyke upper school in Leighton Buzzard—for recently getting every child, bar a very few children who were concerned about bullying but who did not want to sign the anti-bullying contract for individual reasons of conscience, to sign its anti-bullying policy in front of the whole school. Signing a policy is one thing—it was a good innovation—but the real issue is whether it is put into practice and enforced.
	I am disappointed by the attitude of parents when they are told that their child is bullying other children. Perhaps that is not something that schools can do a great deal about, but it saddens and depresses me hugely sometimes. If most decent parents are told that their child is bullying other children, first they feel incredibly sorry and upset about the effect on the children who are being bullied, and try to contact the parents of those children to express their sorrow and give them complete reassurance that they will do something about it. Obviously, they then work with the school to try to ensure that their child's behaviour becomes acceptable—and, of course, to get to the bottom of what it is in their own child that is causing them to bully other children.
	My experience recently, however, is that when parents are confronted with the fact that their child is bullying other children, their first reaction is often to think, "Gosh, will it hurt my child's prospects? Will it damage their school report?" I am tremendously saddened when that sort of attitude is prevalent among parents. Perhaps when parents sign home-school contracts—which, again, we debated yesterday—it could be impressed on them that they have a duty to be thoroughly responsible. If their child is bullying other children in any way, they have an obligation to try to deal with it and to assist the school, thereby ensuring that our schools are safe and happy learning environments for all our children, where education can take place properly. None of us should underestimate the distress caused to children when they suffer any form of bullying.
	The third and final area that I want to touch on is the level of basic literacy in our schools, by which I mean our children's ability to read, write and do basic arithmetic—the three R's, as they used to be called. A couple of weeks ago, I went round an upper school in my constituency with the headmaster and was taken to the learning support area to speak to the outstanding lady who heads that unit. The children at the school are aged between 14 and 16, and that teacher told me that in her estimation, about a quarter of them have difficulty with reading and writing. I was shocked by that statement. We have had a number of debates on the Education and Inspections Bill this week, but it strikes me that that is a national outrage.
	I do not seek to make party political points here, because I do not think that things were much better when we were in power. I will make a deal with the Deputy Leader of the House: I will not blame the Government now, if he will not come back and say that it was our fault when we were in power. This issue should shock and anger us all. Here we are, the fifth largest economy in the world and a major western industrialised nation, and in some cases—

Norman Lamb: rose—

Andrew Selous: I will give way in a moment. I looked at the figures before the debate: Sir Claus Moser said in 2000 that about one in five adults were functionally illiterate, while Digby Jones of the CBI has said one in seven. Whatever the figures—they vary in different parts of the country—they are far too high. It is, I am afraid, an incredible indictment of what is going on in our schools that so many children cannot read and write properly.

Norman Lamb: I agree with the concerns that the hon. Gentleman is expressing. Is he aware that this country has about the longest tail of under-achievement for students leaving school at 16? It is incumbent on us all to try to understand why that is. Does he also accept that that clearly relates to social class? There is discrimination in education. Educational attainment relates to where people come from, which is unacceptable.

Andrew Selous: I agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. If about one in five or one in seven of our nation's children cannot handle basic reading and writing and basic numeracy—in some parts of the country, the figure is even higher, at 40 per cent.—that is unbelievably serious. For goodness' sake, what have children been doing in our schools for the 11 years between the ages of five and 16 if they leave unable to read properly?
	Looking at the issue from first principles, it strikes me that when such a problem is identified when children leave lower school or primary school, there should be intensive—almost exclusive—concentration on teaching them to read and write. What is the point of taking them on and teaching them history, geography, religious education and all those other subjects if they cannot read and write properly?
	I gather that in some schools in the Caribbean, and even in places such as Ghana, children do not move up a year unless they have mastered the basics of that year. I spoke earlier this week to our shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who has been instrumental in bringing the teaching of synthetic phonics into greater national focus. All credit to the Government, as they have taken on board many of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. He told me that it is possible, through an intensive 10-week course, to give any seven-year-old child basic reading skills.
	Earlier in the debate, we heard about antisocial behaviour from my hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and for Castle Point. If we cannot get these basics right in our schools, what hope do we have of conquering problems such as antisocial behaviour if children aged 16 or older leave without the basics—being able to read and write and get a job of any sort in the employment system?
	Why is there no sense of anger about that? Why are MPs not picketing their local directors of education? Why are we not having tough conversations with heads outside this House? Why does this issue not dominate Education and Skills questions? The Public Accounts Committee's report last year, "Skills for Life: Improving adult literacy and numeracy", drew the following hugely understated conclusion about raising basic levels of literacy and numeracy:
	"a large proportion of its resources"—
	those of the skills for life strategy—
	"are taken up by recent school leavers, many of whom might reasonably have been expected to gain their qualifications at school."
	Given all the debates that we have had this week about structure, funding, independence and involving other organisations, we must get on top of that issue. We must drive down the percentage of children who leave school at 16 without those basic skills. Unless we can do that, we will not have a hope of dealing with the problems of antisocial behaviour about which we have heard this afternoon, or of increasing our national productivity and competing effectively with other countries in Europe, and with India, China and other countries in the far east, as we need to do.

Charles Walker: Once again, I wish to raise the issue of the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust, which provides mental health services. It is an important trust, which serves Hertfordshire and my constituency, and faces significant cuts this year and perhaps in coming years.
	In case I sound churlish, let me say that the Government's record in mental health is moving in the right direction. Everyone, across the political spectrum, wants the best service delivered to some of society's most vulnerable people. Let me add the caveat, however, that the Government have probably slightly lost their way recently, especially in Hertfordshire.
	As Members of the House and the wider public know, mental health problems come with a huge amount of stigma attached. One need only think of the headlines in  The Sun when Frank Bruno underwent mental health problems—the headline "Frank Loono" was considered—and when Adam Ant had his problems. The behaviour of the media was disgraceful.
	For that reason, I am glad that the Government are spending money on a campaign to raise awareness of mental health problems and to try to reduce the stigma—Shift. Unfortunately, that campaign receives funding of only £1 million across England, which is 2p per head. That pales into insignificance when compared with the 15p per head spent in Scotland, although that is not a huge sum of money either. I am afraid that those figures are not in the same ballpark as the money spent on smoking cessation programmes, important though those are.
	The Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust was founded in 2001 and has operated since without going into deficit; it has balanced its books. This year, however, despite its good financial record, it was asked to make savings of £5.6 million—more than a 5 per cent. cut in its annual budget. I raised the issue in an Adjournment debate on 19 April, when I mentioned several of the services to be closed. I will not rehash those points today; the House is aware of them and they are recorded in  Hansard. However, those closures are against the proposals in the Government's White Paper "Investing in Your Mental Health", which most Members of the House welcomed.
	When I first raised the issue in that Adjournment debate, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) said:
	"The Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust's total increased investment in its mental health services is £4.2 million over and above inflation for the three-year period from 2003 to 2006."—[ Official Report, 19 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 204.]
	That sounds good, until we remember that although the trust had an additional £4.2 million, the Government are now asking for £5.6 million back. What they gave with one hand they seem to be taking back with two.
	When I raised that with the Minister, she said
	:
	"I will come to some of the specific points that the hon. Gentleman has raised."—[ Official Report, 19 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 204.]
	Unfortunately, she forgot to do so. Undeterred, I raised the same issue with the Secretary of State for Health—who, I may say, knows me by name, which is probably more than some of my own Front Benchers do, so I have a great deal of time for her. When I asked my question, she looked me straight in the eye and said:
	"I shall come to that point in a little more detail in a moment."—[ Official Report, 9 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 193.]
	I had absolutely no reason to disbelieve the Secretary of State. After all, she calls me Charles in the Division Lobbies and always makes time for me. Unfortunately, she too forgot to return to the point.

Theresa May: What were you doing in the same Division Lobby?

Charles Walker: Only yesterday evening I bumped into the Secretary of State during the vote on the Education and Inspections Bill as we supported the Government against their own Back Benchers. When I suggested to her that she might want to answer the question about what was happening to the money in a little more detail at a future date, she smiled very sweetly and moved on quickly.
	I am extremely disappointed that my local mental health trust faces such huge cuts over the coming year. If we are to believe Government figures given during a debate on 7 February, they account for a third of all the money being clawed back from mental health trusts in the United Kingdom. In response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the Minister of State, Department of Health said:
	"11 of 84 trusts are making expenditure reductions that amount to £16.5 million out of a total expenditure on mental health of more than £6 billion".—[ Official Report, 7 February 2006;Vol. 442, c. 755.]
	Well, £16.5 million across 11 trusts does not sound a lot of money—in fact, I am sure that it is a little more than that—but my trust accounts for a third of that amount, £5.6 million, with the other 10 trusts have to make cuts of £1.1 million each. I cannot believe that that is just or fair, particularly given that the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust has never been in deficit in the five years for which it has been in operation. It has always balanced its books. What message do those cuts send to other trusts throughout the country that are struggling to balance their books? Not a very positive one.
	Perhaps the Hertfordshire trust has been a little naïve. Why did it even bother to balance its books over the past five years? Perhaps it should have just gone into deficit, like so many other trusts. I am concerned about the fact that the trust is being asked to bail out other parts of the health service. That seems to contradict what the Secretary of State for Health believes. When I asked her about this—no, I did not ask her, actually; she just said it—she announced:
	"we are reforming the way in which the NHS is run so that every hospital"
	—I assume that she meant "trust"—
	"takes responsibility for organising the best care within its budget. We will not expect others to bail them out."—[ Official Report, 9 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 196.]
	That is simply not the case. As I have explained, my local mental health trust is being asked to bail out hospitals and trusts that are in deficit to the tune of £5.6 million. It is being penalised, and there seems to be no justice in the way in which it is being treated.
	Of course, the Government will say that they have put local decision making in the hands of local health communities. That does not apply in this case. After all, it is the Government who fund the NHS, via the taxpayer. It is the Government who expect trusts to achieve financial balance, and demand that they do so. And it is the Government who, in this instance, are in essence asking for their money back.
	I have raised my concerns with a number of charities, including Rethink, which as most Members know is a leading mental health charity. In its briefing, which was sent to Members of Parliament only a couple of weeks ago, it states:
	"We believe that this is a national pattern in which wider health deficits are being addressed by shifting resources out of mental health."
	That is a fairly damning and worrying statement that should concern everyone in this Chamber and at the Department of Health, and all those outside this Chamber who would doubtless like to be here now. Mental health cuts are the deepest cuts. Mental health has traditionally been underfunded, so every pound taken from it can almost be multiplied by two or three when one contrasts that service with the better-funded areas of health care, such as cancer and heart disease.
	I wrote to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central to ask her whether she was aware of the scale of the cuts and of the damage that they would do to local mental health services in Hertfordshire. She kindly responded on 5 May, saying:
	"In deciding what proposals should be considered, the PCTs took account of...efficiency savings that could be made and that would avoid an adverse impact on front-line services".
	Well, the cuts in Hertfordshire will have an impact on front-line services—a very severe one. The hon. Lady also said that PCTs took account of
	"proposals that were in accord with the principles and priorities set out in the recent consultation on mental health services".
	I assume that she was referring to "Investing In Your Mental Health".
	I have spoken to national charities and charities in the local health community, and they are absolutely convinced that the cuts will impact on people's health and increase the risk of suicide, and might lead to additional suicides. The hon. Lady went on to say that proposals were considered
	"that did not worsen any inequality in the delivery of services across Hertfordshire."
	I am afraid to say that those proposals will lead to huge inequality in the delivery of services and have an enormous impact on many people's lives.
	I ask the Secretary of State to intervene in this matter. She is a decent woman, and if she took the time to look at what is going on and to consider the fact that a trust that has never been in deficit in five years is being penalised for the deficits of others, she might change her mind. As Rethink said, the Department of Health is complacent about these cuts and the impact that they will have on some of the sickest people in society—people who are ignored by, and who feel marginalised by, society. These are vital, critical services for local people, and central to their well-being.

Norman Lamb: I was pleased that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) focused on mental health, which has always been the Cinderella service. It self-evidently deals with some of the most vulnerable people, and many of us are extremely concerned about cuts to the service.
	I want to take this opportunity to raise a number of issues that are of concern to Norfolk in particular, but all of which have some wider significance. First, I want to discuss the very sad closure of RAF Coltishall in my North Norfolk constituency and the question of age discrimination. A constituent of mine, Mr. Tony Thorpe, is a civilian employed by the RAF at Coltishall and has worked there for nearly 11 years. He is 60 and was amazed to discover that the cut-off point for entitlement to redundancy payment is 57. Such employees are exempt from the normal right to statutory redundancy payments, and he was initially told that he would get no redundancy payment at 60. We should bear it in mind that, at that age, it is particularly difficult to get other work. He was subsequently told, however, that he would receive a discretionary payment of £1,500—a figure based on allowing £150 a year for each of his 10 complete years of service. That is massively less than someone who had served the same number of years but was aged 40—an age at which it is much easier to get other work. That is not an appropriate way to treat someone who has worked loyally for the RAF for more than a decade.
	The law will change on 1 October, when the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 come into force under the European employment directive. The explanatory notes state that, among other measures, they will remove the upper age limit for unfair dismissal and redundancy rights, giving older workers the same rights to claim unfair dismissal or to receive a redundancy payment as younger workers. The Government will introduce those rights in October, but they are denying the same rights to someone who is being made redundant before then.
	In 1999, the Government introduced a voluntary code of practice on age diversity in employment that was supposed to set out best practice principles. The Government have failed to follow their own code and are discriminating against loyal staff only months before they legislate to outlaw that unacceptable discrimination. Today, the Government accepted the argument that we will all have to work longer, so why should they discriminate against someone aged 60? I urge the Minister to pass on my concerns to his colleagues in the Department for Trade and Industry, because that injustice needs to be addressed immediately.
	The next issue is a case study of what has been dubbed the "Tescoisation" of Britain. In Norfolk, Tesco already has 44 stores, but in a long-running saga it has attempted to secure a supermarket site in Sheringham, a thriving coastal town with an impressive town centre and shopping area. Last September, in the latest stage of the saga, the local authority planning committee emphatically rejected Tesco's latest proposal, voting 20 to nil against it. However, in April, councillors were forced into an extraordinary volte face. They decided no longer to resist Tesco's appeal against an earlier refusal after receiving legal advice on an agreement that had come to light on the sale of land by the council to Tesco. It had been signed by officers immediately after the 2003 district elections, when a new council had been elected but before members took their seats. The new councillors were not informed and a confidentiality clause was included that appears to have prevented them from explaining to an amazed public why they had changed their minds so completely compared with just a few months earlier. It appears that that legal agreement effectively prevented the council from pursuing any alternative proposal on council-owned land. Tesco managed to secure an exclusive right, without the public knowing, to pursue a supermarket application.
	The public were amazed by the apparently inexplicable change of approach and it is untenable for local people to be left in the dark about a process that has been characterised by secrecy. I pay tribute to the council for being determined to get the full facts into the public domain, but I am concerned that years of secret negotiations between council officers and a major supermarket chain appear to have resulted in a legal agreement with a secrecy clause, leading to a volte face by the council without the public having any idea why that has happened. That is not an example of open and transparent decision-making. The whole planning process needs to be looked at to ensure that the public can have confidence in it.
	Norfolk and Norwich university hospital is one of the Government's flagship private finance initiative projects. It was built immediately after the 1997 general election, and it pioneered, on behalf of the whole NHS, the new form of financing that the Government said was the way forward. The hospital now faces a financial black hole of about £15 million.
	We have heard already in this debate about health service redundancies. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) told the House that his local hospital is to lose a number of nursing sisters. The flagship Norfolk and Norwich hospital faces the prospect of up to 450 redundancies—nearly 10 per cent. of its work force. That is obviously a massive concern to the people involved, but we must also be worried about the impact on patient care.
	The trust has said:
	"We do not believe that we can achieve the required level of cost savings to break even in 06-07 without the risk of severely compromising the ability of the hospital to deliver safe, high-quality patient care."
	That is an extremely serious matter, so what caused the financial crisis? Was it chaotic management? Clearly not: we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Broxbourne that his hospital trust had met its financial targets every year, and the same is true of the Norfolk and Norwich. It has broken even every year, at the same time as implementing the sort of major change that the Government have encouraged. It is well run, but it was told about its budget settlement only two weeks before the start of the new financial year. That is a ridiculous way to plan the finances of a major hospital.
	I want to highlight two issues, the first of which is the PFI contract. I referred the contract to the National Audit Office a couple of years ago, as it seemed to be very expensive and a poor deal for the NHS. Ultimately, the NAO agreed, finding that the Norfolk and Norwich hospital trust was paying an additional sum, or premium, for being one of the first PFI hospitals. When it was built, it was very difficult to secure private sector engagement, and the hospital had to pay extra.
	The private partner in the project was the Octagon consortium. Two years after the hospital opened, Octagon refinanced and secured a windfall gain of £116 million, £82 million of which it retained. In its recent report on what is an extraordinary scandal, the Public Accounts Committee said that
	"the benefits to Octagon's investors have soared on refinancing to levels which are unacceptable even for an early PFI deal".
	The report went further, adding:
	"We do not expect to see another Accounting Officer appearing before this Committee defending what we believe to be the unacceptable face of capitalism...in the consortium's dealings with the public sector."
	Those are the words of the PAC's Conservative Chairman, and they are a pretty strong condemnation of what happened.
	Octagon's chairman is the well respected Lord Lieutenant of Norfolk, Richard Jewson. He and his colleagues should reflect on the PAC's findings very carefully. It is a major Committee of this House, and its findings must be taken very seriously by the Government and their private-sector partners. Both the Government and Octagon should reflect on the findings, and consider whether it is in their long-term interests to assist the Norfolk and Norwich hospital trust further in dealing with its severe financial difficulties. The public of Norfolk will expect nothing less than a further contribution from Octagon.
	I call on the Secretary of State to intervene. Norfolk's patients should not pay the price of pioneering a new form of financing on behalf of the Government and the health service. The premiumfor this expensive PFI contract amounts to about£6.8 million a year—a significant amount.
	Many hon. Members might be aware that the market forces factor is the device by which the economics of operating in different geographical areas are taken into account and, theoretically, equalised to ensure fairness around the country. The formula is a fiction. I understand that departmental officials have serious doubts about whether it is fit for purpose. It discriminates against Norfolk and Norwich hospital and results in an income reduction for it of some£5.2 million in this financial year. Addenbrooke's enjoys a 13 per cent. advantage under the formula over the Norfolk and Norwich, yet the cost of employing staff in Cambridge and Norwich is precisely the same. All areas have to pay the same, other than London, which pays London weighting. The Secretary of State has undertaken to look at the formula. I know that it affects other parts of the country adversely as well. I hope that she will report back speedily to prevent the worst impact of the cuts to which I have referred. There needs to be a fair formula.
	Finally, most hon. Members will not be familiar with the construction of the BBL pipeline—a gas pipeline to Backton in my constituency. The site takes in about a third of the country's gas supplies, so is of fundamental, strategic importance. The pipeline is of enormous significance and the Government are desperate to get it built before next winter because they do not want a repeat of the gas shortages that we experienced last winter. Clearly, it is an urgent priority.
	When such projects are undertaken local inshore fishermen receive disruption payments. The construction of the pipeline might have a serious impact on their work and livelihoods. According to the DTI, there is no legislation or set procedure to be followed regarding compensation payments. Apparently, it is a matter of good will. That causes me and many others serious concern. It is extremely important that the fishermen's interests be protected. If something of national, strategic importance is being undertaken, those affected by it should not be forgotten.
	I have particular concerns about the process that was followed. In negotiations with the company, two people represented the fishermen, Andy Roper and David Shillings. While acting for the fishermen, Mr. Shillings was offered a payment by the company. I raised these concerns with the company, but was told that I had got it all wrong, that Mr. Shillings was a representative of the company, not the fishermen, and that he would receive a payment of £50,000. I was told that this was all set out in a legal agreement and was above board. One week later I received an e-mail from the company, apologising that it had got it all wrong and that Mr. Shillings was not a representative of the company, but was a representative of the fishermen. The company apologised for the confusion. Its explanation was literally incredible.
	One person cannot represent both sides in negotiations. A representative protecting the interests of the fishermen self-evidently cannot be offered £50,000 by the company with which he is negotiating. That raises a central concern: did the fishermen who depend on the North sea for the livelihoods receive a fair deal? I have raised the matter with the Government, who simply say that it is nothing to do with them and that it is for the company to negotiate with the fishermen. However, I should like the DTI to look into the issue. If such essential projects have an impact on other people, such as fishermen, their interests and their livelihoods should be taken into account. There should be a statutory right to disruption payments and a legal framework to protect their interests.
	I have raised four issues of major concern to Norfolk, but they all have wider implications. I hope that the Minister will refer all of them to relevant colleagues.

Edward Vaizey: I am grateful for the chance to contribute briefly to the debate.
	My constituency is the eighth richest in the country; anecdotally, I am told that we have more PhDs per square foot than any other constituency. However, representing an affluent constituency brings its own problems, which I want to highlight. It is important that the Government understand that one of the most economically dynamic areas of the country needs their assistance as much as deprived areas.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) spoke eloquently about the crisis facing Oxfordshire's health services. Today, members of staff at the John Radcliffe hospital have been told the number of redundancies and job cuts that will be made. I do not propose to repeat the points that my hon. Friend made about our health service; I shall focus on some infrastructure issues that cause great concern in my constituency.
	The main trunk road running through the constituency is the A34. Two weeks ago, tragically, a young man was killed crossing the road. The ensuing chaos was extraordinary to behold; it was like a scene from a disaster movie. Traffic was backed up for miles and people travelling between Wantage and Didcot took four or five hours to travel just six miles.
	The A34 dual carriageway is the only road linking some parts of my constituency and some of its economic areas. There are no plans to upgrade the road for the foreseeable future, certainly not for the next10 years, yet it is of major importance, taking freight from Southampton to the midlands while serving as a local road for local businesses that have a national and international imprint.
	I urge the Minister to impress on his colleagues the need for the Government to take a proper, strategic look at infrastructure in my constituency. Not only does it contain some the country's most successful businesses, but it serves the south-east. We take most of London's waste for landfill and Didcot power station provides power for at least a third of the homes in the south-east. We are also due to get the Oxfordshire reservoir, of which Members who take an interest in our current water shortage will be fully aware. The reservoir site is just south of Abingdon and it will be huge—four miles wide—and will provide water for London and Swindon. The scheme has been on the cards since 1990, but there is tremendous uncertainty about the plans. It will be a national decision, taken by the Government, but it will have a huge impact on my local community. There has been no discussion and the Government have given no indication of the impact of the construction of the scheme. There has been no discussion about the additional benefits that could come to my constituency, in terms of upgrading the local infrastructure, if the reservoir were to be built.
	The other great problem that I face—many of my colleagues who represent south-east constituencies also face it—is the number of new houses being built. In Didcot, the main town in my constituency, we are getting 3,000 additional homes and we are due to get a further 5,000 if the South East England regional assembly has its way. Just north of Wantage, in Grove, which is already the largest village in Europe, another 2,500 homes have just been approved, doubling the size of the village. With up to 12,000 or 13,000 additional homes in that small part of the country coming on line in the next 10 or 20 years, it will be vital to deal with the infrastructure, and particularly the A34.
	Finally, the reason why the issue is so important in terms of the Government's national interest is that, thankfully for the people living in my constituency, an enormous amount of scientific investment is being made. The Diamond Synchrotron is due to come on line in the next year, representing a financial investment by the Government of some £500 million. That will ensure that Harwell/Chilton remains at the forefront of scientific innovation not just in our country, but in the world. Up the road, nuclear fusion research is taking place at Culham. With the opening of the ITER site in the next few years in the south of France, that work will continue to have enormous importance.
	All that scientific investment means that we have a huge number of spin-off scientific companies such as Oxford Instruments and companies based at Milton park, which are really driving the British economy. However, when I visit those local businesses, they come back to me again and again with one point: the gradual breaking down of the local infrastructure. The road network is of poor quality and, recently, the Government, through First Great Western, were planning to cut train services between London and Didcot. We are still fighting that battle and we are gradually saving those train services. I hope that we will have saved them by the time that the revised timetable comes out in the autumn.
	Essentially, my contribution to the debate is to ask the Government to sit at the table with my local politicians and local businesses to create some kind of strategic plan for my part of the world. We look after London's waste; we power the south-east; in the next decade, we are probably going to provide most of the water for London; and we have thriving, dynamic businesses. However, we receive almost no Government investment or strategic help whatsoever.

Theresa May: This is the third recess Adjournment debate that I have sat through as shadow Leader of the House and, although such debates are usually seen and mainly used as a good opportunity for hon. Members to raise issues that are relevant to their constituents, it is noticeable that a number of hon. Members have used today's debate to raise issues of concern outside the United Kingdom. It was good that the debate was opened by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) with just such an appeal in relation to the recent EU announcement on fisheries in waters off the African coast—continuing his interest in matters relating to the western Sahara. He has sat through quite a lot of the debate, but unfortunately he is not in his place at the moment.
	I was going to confess to the hon. Gentleman that I did not know many of the details of the announcement that he referred to. However, I felt that his comments raised an important wider issue relating to the way in which the House scrutinises decisions that are taken in the European Union. He referred to the question of what advice had been given to individual Members of the European Parliament on the fisheries issue and on how to vote on it. One of the questions that we in the House need to address is how the House can express a view before Ministers take decisions in the European Union arena, because at the moment the House is not able to express a view. Ministers take decisions and then come back with the results of those decisions. Even then, there is not adequate scrutiny.
	Various other foreign affairs matters were raised. For example, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) spoke in detail about Nigeria, a country that she obviously knows well. She talked about the need to ensure that money invested in Nigeria is used to the maximum benefit of all people in the country. She also spoke about payments by oil companies, and I would add intergovernmental support to that particular list. We need to address the aid that is given to countries more widely and ensure that it is used for the benefit of all in the country that receives it. The hon. Lady also talked about the future of Guantanamo Bay. She and several of her hon. Friends have led a principled campaign on the camp since it was first established.
	The hon. Member for Stroud raised several points relating to his constituency. I noted his concerns about the environmental impact of the Severn barrage, but hope that he agrees that the Government need to broaden their policy on renewables beyond an overemphasis on wind farms, especially onshore wind farms.
	I was pleased to hear from the hon. Gentleman that First Great Western was expressing an interest in improving the London-Cheltenham line. I merely caution him that First Great Western's interest in improvements does not always turn into action through which those improvements are seen, as I have discovered during my campaign to turn back the devastating cuts in services for my constituents who use Maidenhead and Twyford stations on the main line and the branch line stations of Wargrave, Furze Platt and Cookham. I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his campaign.
	I also wish my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) well in his campaign with First Great Western on services to Didcot. Some of the services for his constituents are those that no longer stop in my constituency. His constituents are able to travel on the fast line, whereas my constituents have to take services on the slow line. The battle will continue with the Government because infrastructure is important to our parts of the country. My hon. Friend talked about the importance of his constituency, but the Thames Valley area is economically important to the south-east and the country as a whole and good train services are a key part of its economic vitality. The hon. Member for Stroud, my hon. Friend and I share a common concern in battling against First Great Western, so I hope that we will all have some success in our campaigns.
	The hon. Member for Stroud also talked about access to affordable housing in rural areas. That matter was also touched on, albeit from a slightly different angle, by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), who spoke specifically about the need for more social housing in his constituency. Access to housing is indeed a problem in many parts of the country. Many people think of it as a paradox that under a Labour Government, the amount of social housing being built has fallen dramatically. Far from providing for those people in need of social housing, this Labour Government have left them on one side, all too often forgotten. Of course, that is a legacy of the Deputy Prime Minister when he had a job to do and a Department to run, as opposed to his position now when he has a grand title, a seat in Cabinet, a Cabinet Minister's pay, a grace-and-favour home and a car, but no Department to run.
	The problem regarding the building of affordable homes in rural areas to which the hon. Member for Stroud referred cannot be addressed simply by building lots of smaller houses. Such houses can create additional problems in an area because they are often not built to designs that are sympathetic to local villages and towns. They are often built without the necessary supporting infrastructure, and, in some areas, the market means that even smaller homes are still not affordable for many. The Government need a more coherent approach on housing provision and should consider not just cramming yet more houses into smaller spaces, but the infrastructure required and support for those who are getting a foot on the property ladder. I was worried to hear reports earlier this week that the Government were pulling, or reducing, their scheme on housing for key workers, so perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House will address that in his winding-up speech.
	The hon. Member for Stroud also talked about local government reform. I will not comment on his specific points about the structure of local government, but simply say that history shows us that a Government who start to focus on local government reform are generally a Government in decline.
	The role of local government in attracting business to local areas was raised by the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), who gave a spirited advertisement for the town and its need to continue to attract investment and employment into the area. He argued for vision for Swindon. I suggest that he should also recognise the need for realism. However, I am grateful to him for his effective endorsement of the concept of general well-being raised in a speech earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney(Mr. Cameron), the Leader of the Opposition.
	In addition to the international issues raised by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, she also mentioned the important problem of gun, knife and gang crime. I very much support her view that we need to look not just at the crimes themselves, but at the youth culture that leads to them. The evidence is that many young men feel the need to carry knives for their own protection. However, as long as they do that, I am afraid that such crimes will continue and will increase in number, and the culture will never change.
	It is our challenge to change that culture, but it cannot be done by legislation. We have had many debates about criminal justice measures, and 43 pieces of legislation have been passed in nine years, yetthe problems remain. We have never properly debated the causes of antisocial behaviour and how to tackle the culture that leads to that criminal activity.

Norman Lamb: Tough on the causes of crime.

Theresa May: Of course, the Government came into office with the mantra, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." What we have is lots of legislation on crime, but nothing on the causes of crime.
	The picture that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington drew was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) in an effective contribution that painted a vivid picture of the problems in his area and the lack of activity by the previous Labour council. I congratulate the Conservative group on Bexley council on its excellent results in the local elections on 4 May.
	Antisocial behaviour was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). Sadly, the problems identified by my hon. Friends are experienced elsewhere. Last Saturday afternoon, I spoke to residents in South road and High Town road in Maidenhead about the problems they experience from gangs congregating near Grenfell park and from people walking past their houses after they have left bars. They are often young people who have been binge drinking, a problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford drew attention.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned police community support officers. I agree that we need more police on the streets but, failing that, we need more PCSOs. A recent petition that I and others ran in Woodley in my constituency got more than 600 signatures in favour of a PCSO there. It is only a pity that the Liberal Democrat-controlled Woodley town council has been reluctant to find the £15,000 necessary to part-fund a PCSO out of the £1 million it takes each year from local residents.
	My hon. Friend rightly said that those problems are quality of life issues and that we must have zero tolerance of crime and antisocial behaviour. It is only by not accepting that sort of behaviour and by insisting that something be done about it that we can hope to overcome the problem. If we shrug our shoulders and pass on, saying, "Well, it's only antisocial behaviour," the problems are exacerbated.
	Local policing will not be helped by the Government's moves to create large regional forces. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield said, those moves are often rejected by local forces. The Government's consultation on that has been shown to be a complete sham by the number of police forces that do not want to be merged and yet those mergers are going ahead.
	On a different subject, the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) spoke about water supply, in particular leakages, but also the impact of increased costs on many people. There is no doubt that rises in the costs of utilities, together with rises in council tax, have hit many people hard, especially those who are on fixed incomes. She also referred to the water shortage in the south-east. Obviously, repairing those leaks would have a significant impact on that, but I suspect that she and those of us who spend part of our time in London should say a word of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage, who told us that his constituency is going to have a reservoir which will help to solve London's water problems.
	On the subject of water shortages, last night, I visited the 2nd Cox Green girl guides in my constituency. I answered questions about my experience as a Member of Parliament, and I encouraged the girls to think about politics as a career. I was asked a range of questions, but as we sat with the rain beating against the window, one girl could not help but ask why there was a hosepipe ban.
	I suspect that water shortages are less of a problem in the constituency of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid). He raised a number of issues that affect his constituents, most of them arising from the geographical position of his constituency. It is right to remind the Government of the problems experienced by rural areas, where the considerable distances that people have to travel make it more difficult for them to access services. They must pay high petrol prices, but the Government's attempts to drive people on to public transport simply do not work in such areas because, as he pointed out, public transport is not available. As a result, people in rural areas end up paying more.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Royal Mail and the removal of the post office card account. He and other hon. Members will know that in recent months that has been raised time and time again in business questions, but the Government continue to duck the issue. May I remind the Deputy Leader of the House that the chief executive of the Post Office has said that the removal of the post office card account would result in the Post Office operating 10,000 fewer branches? The Government, however, have refused to address the future of the Post Office. They cannot continue to set their face against the issue. They must address it, as the removal of the card account will have a significant impact on the future of Post Office branches.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) gave us an entertaining picture of the political scene in Hull, with particular reference to school meals. May I suggest that before she worries about cross-party consensus she should try to achieve consensus in her own party? She obviously feels strongly about healthy eating, which she regards as the answer to childhood obesity. I believe that there are two sides to the problem: it is not just about what children eat but about how much exercise they take. Sadly, under the Government, there has been a drop in physical activity in many schools. For many years, children have become increasingly sedentary, whether they are watching television, surfing the net or playing computer games, so we must ensure that they take more physical exercise and run around. In business questions, I said that the cramming of houses into smaller spaces reduced the size of gardens, so children did not have much space to run around and enjoy physical activity. I am sorry that that met with laughter from Government Members, as the policy of cramming too many small houses on to a site reduces gardens and open space, which will have an impact in future.
	Reduced access to public parks will have a similar impact. No recess Adjournment debate would be complete without a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, who said that public parks in his constituency were important, as they gave youngsters space to run around. Other members of the population could walk and sit in them, and their enjoyment would improve their quality of life. He raised, too, matters of conscience on which he has strong views, particularly abortion and the use of human embryos. However, he raised one issue that was new to me—the creation of animal-human hybrids—and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House listened carefully to the points that he made.
	In yesterday's debate on the Education and Inspections Bill, we raised special needs education, particularly special schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) pointed out. He referred to the problems experienced by many parents of children with special needs when trying to access the right provision for their children. The process means that parents often have to spend a long time fighting for such provision for their children. For some, that ends up in tribunals, and often in paying for support at the tribunal. I shared my hon. Friend's concern about the case that he raised in relation to the daughter of his constituent, Mrs. Chambers. The fact that information can be kept from parents should be a concern for us all in the House.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of bullying, which is a problem for far too many children. Like him, I do not believe we do enough to prevent and stop bullying. Sadly, whereas good practice in schools can improve the situation, bad practice can at best achieve nothing and at worst can make matters worse. We must do more to identify good practice with regard to bullying and to spread that good practice.
	My hon. Friend also spoke about basic literacy in our schools. It is a serious matter, not just because of the impact that illiteracy has on children's lives as they go through school and the fact that it holds them back in further learning, but because of the problems that it causes when they reach adulthood in getting a job and in basic living—understanding Government forms or reading instructions on convenience food or medicine bottles—let alone how it affects their overall quality of life. My hon. Friend is right: we in the House should be more angry about the matter than we are, and I commend him for highlighting it.
	Quality of life was also a theme in the contribution of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who spoke about a number of constituency cases, notably that of his constituent Tony Thorpe, who was not eligible for redundancy payments following the closure of RAF Coltishall. The hon. Gentleman ably set out his constituent's case and the apparent unfairness of the current regulations. He also spoke about the treatment of North sea fishermen in the context of the work on the BBL pipeline. I trust that the Deputy Leader of the House listened to those specific points.
	The hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned a Tesco store in Sheringham. I remember Sheringham from my childhood. I remember playing crazy golf on the beach at Sheringham with much joy and delight, at least to me, if not to those watching and playing with me. The hon. Gentleman's comments about the Tesco store raised important points about the planning system, particularly about negotiations between the council and Tesco.
	I cannot comment on the individual case because I do not know enough about the details, but there is an issue with regard to the planning system because it depends on public confidence. All those involved in the planning process have a duty to behave in a way that ensures public confidence in the system. It is an issue that I often raise with reference to the enforcement of planning conditions. If developers believe that they can get away with breaching or ignoring planning conditions, the whole system is brought into disrepute.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage, who squeezed his way into the debate at the end, spoke about a variety of issues. I have mentioned the transport issue. For areas of economic vitality, infrastructure is crucial. The Thames Valley Economic Partnership has pointed out that because the Thames valley is economically vibrant and doing well, transport infrastructure is not put into it. Of course, the opposite is true. If transport infrastructure is not put in, the economic vibrancy will start to fail.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the Diamond synchrotron and other incredibly impressive scientific work being done in his constituency. Last week at the TVEP dinner, I had the benefit of listening to somebody from the Rutherford Appleton laboratory in his constituency, who waxed lyrical for some time about space exploration and the impressive scientific work being done there. He also told us one important fact: in 2029 an asteroid will come very close to earth. The good news is that in 2029 it only comes close to earth. The bad news is that in 2036 it may very well hit the earth. Like everybody at the dinner, those in the Chamber are probably making a mental calculation of where they will be in 2036 and whether that matters to them. I leave them to do that.
	Several hon. Members mentioned the NHS. It has been raised consistently in business questions since I became shadow Leader of the House in December. The hon. Member for Chesterfield was the first to mention it in this afternoon's debate when he spoke about job losses at his local hospital, which is not a failing but a three-star hospital that has consistently delivered Government policy. Both the current and the previous Leader of the House have constantly criticised me in business questions for referring to job cuts in the NHS. I reiterate that they should get out and find what is happening in the NHS.
	As several hon. Members said, real job cuts are taking place. There are 43 fewer ward sisters in the Chesterfield royal infirmary, 600 jobs are going in the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust and 450 jobs will be lost in the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust. Cuts are also happening in mental health trusts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) outlined when he mentioned the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust. Berkshire Healthcare NHS Trust has to save £10 million. It hopes to do that without cuts in services, but how can it without affecting services?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne referred to his somewhat cosy relationship with the Secretary of State for Health, which he appears to have developed on several occasions in the Division Lobby. He gave the impression that he had spent rather a lot of time with her there. Although I appreciate that we have joined the Government in the Lobby on a small number of occasions recently, my hon. Friend has either been spending more time there than with us—I doubt that—or he is a fast worker. However, job cuts in the health service are a serious matter. They will affect patient care, not only the lives of those whose jobs are taken away.
	The hon. Member for Chesterfield specifically mentioned financial planning and what happens when the Government pull the rug away from under one's feet half way through the system. In the Thames valley area, the rules changed six months into the financial year and it was therefore little wonder that the trusts found themselves in financial difficulties. Yet the Government keep saying that mismanagement in the trusts leads to the deficits. That is often not the case, and the Government's actions cause the problems.

Charles Walker: Does not my right hon. Friend think it remarkable that a trust that has balanced its books for five years without going into deficit is now being asked to contribute £5.6 million to other trusts' deficits?

Theresa May: Yes, I do. It is also remarkable that the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust, which is the most efficient trust, has to make 600 job cuts as a result of the requirement to cut the amount of money that it is spending. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) spoke movingly about the impact of that decision, which is being made today, on not only those who lose their jobs but Horton general hospital in his constituency and services for his constituents generally.
	The Government keep responding, as the hon. Member for North Swindon did today, by saying that more money is being spent on the NHS today than in the past, so everything must be all right. We all know that more money is being spent on the NHS today than in the past. Taxpayers know that, but they want to know how the Secretary of State for Health can say that it has been the best year ever for the NHS when staff are losing their jobs, community hospitals are threatened with closure and units such as the maternity unit at Wycombe hospital have been closed. That means that people have to travel further for services and their choice is being taken away from them. People have a simple question. They know that they have been paying more towards the health service, but what has happened to the money? The answer is that too much has been spent on the target culture and administrative changes.
	I have been a Member of Parliament for nine years and, in that time, the structure of primary care in my constituency has been changed four times. Those changes not only disrupt services but take up money that is doing nothing to improve patient care. The Government need to open their eyes to what is happening out there in the national health service. People know that the money that the Government are spending is not going on the improvements that they were promised, and from which they believed they would benefit. This Government are out of touch and in paralysis.

Nigel Griffiths: One of the pleasures of holding this position in the House of Commons is that it gives me the opportunity to listen to so many contributions from colleagues on both sides of the House, as they speak from experience and with passion and conviction. I want to deal with as many of their points as possible in sequence, but I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I deal first with what I thought was the outstanding contribution among the many excellent speeches made today.
	The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) talked about the problems relating to special educational needs, a matter in which I have both a professional and a private interest. He spoke movingly of the struggle that individual families face, and I am glad that the subject has been raised. It is important that the report from the Select Committee be taken seriously and I know that its members will have listened to him and to others with expertise in this field. That will mean that they will be able to produce a very informed report.
	The hon. Member also raised bullying in schools and, like him, I praise Dame Kelly Holmes for lending her considerable weight on that issue. He hinted about the way in which the issue was being tackled. I believe that this relates to leadership in schools and that the problem can be dealt with. Indeed, it has been dealt with most effectively in my own constituency by a relatively new head teacher called Donald Macdonald of Liberton high school. He takes personal responsibility for the issue and talks to parents himself, rather than delegating the task to the deputy head or to other teachers. He takes what other hon. Members have described as a zero tolerance approach.
	The hon. Member also mentioned literacy levels, but I shall not respond by saying where the improvements have been made. We need to look at how the problems are to be tackled. I heard similar criticisms before I came to this role, when I was the Minister with responsibility for small businesses and construction. Those concerns are shared equally by Digby Jones of the CBI, by Brendan Barber and by the Federation of Small Businesses, among others. Although I believe that we have turned a corner on this issue, we should unite to drive up standards further, along the lines suggested by the hon. Member.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) requested that I take up the issue of the European Union and the Moroccan fishing settlement. I shall ensure that my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Foreign Office learn of his concerns and write to him about them. He also mentioned his criticisms of the Severn barrage. I know that that issue divides Members of Parliament just as it divides communities. He said that he was pro-nuclear and I know that he will be making a submission to the Energy Minister, who is considering that matter.
	My hon. Friend also touched on local government and on his belief that the Government must implement their reform of local government, especially in his area, which has a two-tier council structure. Again, I will ensure that my colleagues who are dealing with that issue are made aware of his comments. He and other hon. Members mentioned railway lines. In his case, it was a single line that was causing problems. That must be frustrating for him, as he will be aware that we have doubled spending on the railways in the past five years to £4.3 billion, and that we now have the fastest growing railway in Europe. Last year, it carried more than 1 billion passengers, which I understand might be the highest figure on record. However, there is still more to be done. He praised the Affordable Rural Housing Commission and supported community land trusts, and I know that that will be welcome as well.
	The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) raised a number of issues. I am sorry to hear that his local three-star hospital is reporting the steps that it wishes to take. The true picture is very different from the one painted in the media. There have been other reports where the number of job cuts has simply not been realised. Although the facts are not something that many Opposition Members seem interested in, let me give him some for solace. Of course, all the extra spending in the health service has gone on helping to recruit more nurses, doctors and consultants. In his own health area, the last figures that I saw indicated that there were something like 3,500 more nurses serving his constituents and the wider health area than in 1997, and more than 1,000 doctors and more than 300 consultants.
	The hon. Member referred to the problems that he says are being faced in dentistry. He will know that we have increased investment in dental schools and education by more than 30 per cent., but to ensure better value for money, we have also increased the number of dental students by 34 per cent. The facts are clear: 4,600 more dentists are now practising in general and personal dental services than in 1997. Although adult registrations with dentists fell by 1 million between 1992 and 1997, under this Government they have increased by 1 million, but there are still issues that must be addressed and I am grateful to him for raising the issue.
	The hon. Member spoke of people's inability to secure social housing. I chaired the housing committee in Edinburgh some years before his service in local government. I never shared the misguided support for the indiscriminate sale of council houses. I am pleased that £150 million has been spent by the Government to reduce homelessness, which is down by 70 per cent.
	I thought that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was uncharacteristically critical of the Deputy Prime Minister. If she looks at the record that I think he will be judged on, she will see 230,000 more affordable houses and a £2.2 billion budget that has gone to secure 30,000 social houses a year towards 2008. Those are important benefits, when we need to address the issue of housing for those who are priced out of the high-value housing market.
	The hon. Member for Chesterfield also mentioned the police merger, but that has been the subject of extensive consultation. One thing was clear before that consultation was embarked on: there were too many police authorities. The arrangements are not fit for purpose in the 21st century and they must be reorganised, and I am sure that, at the end of the day, we will have a more effective police service in his area and elsewhere.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) raised an issue that concerns all hon. Members: knife crime. It is important to ensure that the steps that we have taken so far are made even more effective. We have added a number of knife types to the offensive weapons list. We have raised the minimum age at which knives can be bought from 16 to 18. There is now a knife amnesty, which runsuntil 30 June. The last knife amnesty took place exactly 10 years ago, and I understand the more than 30,000 weapons were handed in. Of course, the message from us all is clear: carrying knives is an offence. They are offensive weapons. They merit penalties for possession, including imprisonment. I am glad that that was raised.
	The Government have been clear and consistent on Guantanamo Bay. It would be better if the Guantanamo Bay base closed. The US Administration know our position.
	My hon. Friend also raised Nigeria and the pipeline explosion that killed an estimated 200 people who she said were responsible for illegally tapping into that pipeline. Nigeria is a country in which we have taken a particular interest and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was there earlier this week. We are determined to ensure that our aid to that part of Africa and elsewhere is proportionate to our being the fourth largest economy in the world.
	The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) raised the issue of the NHS trust in his area and his concerns over the reported number of threatened job losses that the acting chief executive of the trust is telling him about. It is important, again, to know that there have been several thousand additional NHS front-line staff—nurses, consultants and doctors specifically—since 1997. That is all part of that investment whereby spending on the NHS will triple between 1997 and 2008. I regret that neither he nor his hon. Friends voted for any of that additional money to the health service. I do not have to remind his constituents of what would have been the impact had the Conservative budget continued.
	The hon. Member raised the issue, as did the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, who is speaking for the Opposition today, and implied that, although a lot more money may have been spent, the quality of service and delivery of services have not improved. Let me give him and the House the improvements in the two primary care trusts in his area—North East Oxfordshire and Cherwell Vale. In 1997-98, there were 6,912 operations carried out in North East Oxfordshire PCT. That figure has risen by a quarter to 8,536. The figure for the Cherwell Vale PCT was 10,847 operations in 1997-98. In 2004-05, it had risen by almost 50 per cent. to 15,152.

Tony Baldry: May I make a request of the Deputy Leader of the House? All I ask is that we find a Minister who will come to Oxfordshire to see the reality, rather than living in this fantasy world. Will a Minister come to Oxfordshire and explain to my constituents how losing a general hospital is in some way an improvement and an advance?

Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Member spoiled the strength of his appeal with talk of a fantasy world and by not accepting the facts. I was surprised at the strength of his language in saying that that was the blackest day ever, in the face of such figures and a trend that I am confident will continue.
	The hon. Member mentioned the reorganisation as well as the position of general hospitals and of maternity—

Simon Burns: Will the Minister give way?

Nigel Griffiths: How could I refuse?

Simon Burns: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because there is an issue that causes problems here. He told us how many operations there were in that PCT area in 1996-97 and how many now. Can he tell us how he worked out the number of operations carried out in 1996-97, because there was no such thing as a PCT at that time?

Nigel Griffiths: I looked at the same geographical area and the information covered by it. The figures will have been added up from the hospitals in operation then and divided between PCTs. That is a fair question, if I might say.
	On hospital closures, I know from the major hospitals in my constituency, including the sick children's hospital, which I visited last Saturday, that the relentless pressure on technology, as well as the need for multi-million pound suites of technological equipment and for large teams of specialists, are driving the health service towards not just a more expensive delivery of service, but centralisation, because the critical mass can be achieved only by harmonising.
	I recognise that that causes problems and it gives me no pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Banbury, who is genuinely representing constituents' concerns, that his constituents may have to travel for an hour to a local hospital. That has been accepted over time in rural areas, and it is a pity if people see it as a diminution of the modern health service. I am not convinced, however, that such technological development, with highly skilled surgeons, nursing teams, anaesthetists and so on, does not tend to dictate that fewer highly expensive facilities are provided that do more and more effectively. I hope that he can have that dialogue with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health. It is, however, a genuinely vexing issue.
	The hon. Member also mentioned one or two other issues, and I shall not make the political points thatI might have done— [Interruption.] Can I get away with saying that, in relation to cardiology services, 2.5 million patients are now receiving specialist drug treatments compared with 300,000 in 1997? I do not know how much of that is related to extra funding, how much is related to technology and so on. Without making a political point, I am glad, as he will be glad, that 2.5 million people are receiving that treatment. Of course, since 1997, heart disease is down by 38 per cent.

Theresa May: If cardiology services have improved so much, why did more than 100 patients have their operations cancelled at the John Radcliffe hospital, which is part of the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust, at the turn of the year? They were not put on a longer waiting list; they were just told that the hospital did not provide that operation any longer.

Nigel Griffiths: I am sure that staff at that hospital did not sit down and say that they were going to consign 100 patients to some terrible condition from which they are going to die. I do not believe that modern clinicians, surgeons and cardiologists do that. The right hon. Member is using that case selectively, without appreciating the full facts. No doctor or consultant would deprive any of her constituents of an operation or treatment that they thought necessary. They are getting more funding to carry out such treatment now than ever.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) raised a number of issues relating to regeneration. I know that he will make further representations, and I was pleased that he raised the issue of a new library, as the staff of Edinburgh's Sighthill library, which is near my constituency, have just been given a UK-wide award for best public service delivery of the year.
	As the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) warmed to his subject, he became less heated and more persuasive, having started at a pretty fierce pace. It is unusual for me to praise a Member for that. Of course, we share his concern about gangs of youths, which was also raised by other Members. We have put through legislation that is helping to control that problem, and that was acknowledged. Some criticism was made relating to whether the police could provide better enforcement, and I am sure that we all have that dialogue with our police forces when we get complaints from local residents. I know that chief constables such as mine listen and respond in relation to their policing technique. There are many more police to deal with the problem now. I will not give the figure. It should also be recognised that there have been 4 million fewer victims of reported crime over the past nine years, along with a substantial drop in the number of burglaries and cases of violent crime. We want to ensure that that trend continues. I have listened carefully to what has been said by the hon. Member and others, and I will ensure that, notwithstanding his other duties at the moment, the Home Secretary is aware of the concerns that are being voiced.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) raised a case involving a constituent that I am sure is not unique. I should also be surprised if the chief executive did not respond fairly promptly. I know that she would not hesitate to refer the matter to Ofwat if she did not receive a satisfactory response. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will happily respond to any issues that she may wish to raise with him.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) advocates road pricing. I am sorry that I could not enlist his support for the conversion of the Liberal Democrats in Edinburgh, who campaigned against it with environmental groups. I may refer them to him for a bit of education. I will certainly check whether the Scottish Liberal Democrat Minister responsible for transport, Tavish Scott, can intervene with a subsidy to help the ferry service about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. He may not have budgeted for it, but the hon. Gentleman issued a heartfelt plea.
	There are a number of serious issues relating to the Post Office. For me, the most serious is the poor treatment that it receives from Liberal Democrat councils such as Aberdeen. Unlike my colleagues in Edinburgh, who have ensured that people can pay rent, service charges and trade waste charges in their local post offices, I am afraid that the Liberal Democrats in Aberdeen refuse to take up that service. After I raised the matter when responding to an Adjournment debate some time ago, they said that they would think about it. That was before the election, so it was at least a year and a bit ago. I am sorry that there has been no movement on that. We have shown in Edinburgh how it can be done, and that it is the best way of supporting a local service.
	The best way to support the card service is to do what the Government have been doing: spending, I understand, almost £1 billion on the service over its duration, until towards the end of the decade. The service has been strongly endorsed by the Government and funded by them to the tune of the colossal sum of about £100 million a year. I understand that it is only one of 23 or 24 card and payment services that are available to post office customers, and I urge them to explore those other services as well.
	The hon. Member referred to the search and rescue helicopter service. I will certainly draw that to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The hon. Member mentioned digital changeover, and called for taxpayers' money to help. I do not know whether that is an uncosted Liberal Democrat budget promise. He raised another tax issue with his plea for a reduction in the tax on petrol in rural areas. Again, I am keen to see the costings. I am not sure whether the matter was raised in the recent Budget debate, but I will check the minutes. I am sorry that my Labour colleagues in the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh seem to have been misled, seduced almost, by the Liberal Democrat practices down in Hull that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) highlighted. She made an excellent speech about the need to tackle obesity. That sounds like a pilot project well worth extending throughout the country, and I hope that my colleagues in the Department of Health will note what she said.
	There were a number of other contributions, but time is tight, so I will endeavour to—
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

HEALTH SERVICES (GLOUCESTERSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Steve McCabe.]

Mark Harper: I first want to place on the record my thanks to Mr. Speaker for selecting as the subject for this Adjournment debate health services in the Forest of Dean and Gloucestershire. The background to the debate is that on 10 May, which was rightly named "black Wednesday" by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), 12 hospitals or similar facilities and hundreds of beds and jobs were threatened with closure by the local health trust.
	As those closures will affect all the Gloucestershire constituencies, we tried to start an all-party campaign against them. Four of the six Gloucestershire MPs—my hon. Friends the Member for Cotswold and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and myself—are opposing the closures. I see that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is in the Chamber, and I know that he, too, has many concerns about the closures. We are stronger when we are united; it is just unfortunate that we have been unable to get all six Gloucestershire Members on board for a united campaign.
	In my constituency, both the community hospitals—the Dilke Memorial hospital and the Lydney and district hospital—face closure, and the closure of Colliers Court, which deals with mental health, is also proposed. I am very grateful to our local press, which has run strong campaigns on this issue.  The Forester and its editor, Viv Hargreaves, ran a "Save our Services" campaign, and  The Citizen and its editor, Ian Mean, ran a "Save our Hospitals" campaign.
	So that the Minister completely understands why people in Gloucestershire are so concerned about these closures, it is worth considering briefly one or two of the recent headlines in the local papers.  The Citizen ran "A Black Day for Health Care in the County",  The Forester ran "Meltdown in the NHS", and the  Forest of Dean and Wye Valley Review ran "The Bitter Pill". As recently as yesterday, one paper ran the headline, "Take Your Medicine—the only way to beat off the threat to the Dilke and Lydney hospitals is to bring down the Government." That is perhaps going a little too far for the moment, but that headline certainly represents the strength of feeling in my constituency. In the light of the tremendous public concern, the broadcast media have also been excellent. ITV, the BBC and our local radio stations have covered the issue very well. I want also to pay tribute to local campaigners who have rallied to defend our services; there are too many to thank individually.
	On 11 May, my hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold and for Tewkesbury and I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health a letter that we, with a delegation of nurses from Gloucestershire, hand-delivered to the Department of Health. We are still waiting for even a holding reply. People in the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold spoke to the Department last week and at the beginning of this week, but we cannot expect even the reply to a request for a meeting until next week—during the recess.
	The Secretary of State has already had a meeting with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), and I had thought that the Department was perhaps playing party politics. Then I discovered during yesterday's Westminster Hall debate on community hospitals that the hon. Member for Stroud, too, has written to the Secretary of State and has not had an answer. We expect a reply soon, and with no disrespect to the Minister present, we also expect to have a meeting with the Secretary of State. I would be grateful if the Minister gave some indication of when we will get a reply, and a meeting.

David Drew: I am happy to make common cause with the hon. Gentleman. I have not said that I will not see the Secretary of State; in fact, I have been lobbying her very carefully in the past few days. The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to hear that I have had a reply from the chief executive of the strategic health authority. On tracking down the figures, it has emerged that in the past four years, Avon and Wiltshire received £175 million in additional funding, of which Gloucestershire has, of course, had none. We might want to raise that point with the Secretary of State, and the hon. Gentleman will doubtless be willing to join me on that particular bandwagon.

Mark Harper: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point; we would welcome his joining us in our meeting with the Secretary of State. That interesting information perhaps highlights the concerns that constituents have when they see that the various areas within a strategic health authority are not being treated fairly and equally, which is all that they are asking for.
	The White Paper on community hospitals makes it clear that community hospitals that are under threat of closure should not be lost in response to short-term budgetary pressures. Both the Dilke and Lydney community hospitals in my constituency are threatened with closure for exactly that reason, and I want to know what the Government intend to do about that contradiction.
	I raised that issue with the Prime Minister yesterday, and instead of answering my question he changed the subject. I hope that the Minister will do better. The Prime Minister is quick to claim credit for any good news in the NHS, as he attempted to do in his response to me yesterday, but if he is personally responsible for all that goes well, it follows that he must take responsibility for what goes badly. If he is responsible for new hospitals opening, he is also responsible when community hospitals are closed.
	It is not only hospitals that we must be concerned about, but the services available in the community. I received an e-mail yesterday from a GP in my constituency, who pointed out that there is a complete embargo by the PCT on replacing staff who leave and on employing new staff. In the West Gloucestershire PCT, which covers my constituency, six health visitor posts and two community nursing posts are being held unfilled. That does not fill us with confidence that services that are being cut in hospitals will be replaced by services in the community.
	The Minister will know that I continue to raise, through parliamentary questions, the issue of the policy of the Department of Health on deficits in the NHS. The cuts proposed in Gloucestershire have been prompted by deficits, but there is a contradiction at the heart of Government policy, and I hope that the Minister can clear it up. The January 2006 operating framework for 2006-07 said:
	"All NHS organisations should plan to recover deficits for previous years and balance their books for 2006-07."
	However, the Secretary of State wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire(Mr. Lansley) on 12 April, stating that the Department expected
	"all organisations that are overspending to show improvements during 2006-07, and by the end of the year everyone should have monthly income covering monthly expenditure."
	Those two statements outline different policies and both cannot be true. My hon. Friend tried to get an answer to that conundrum at Health questions on 16 May. The Secretary of State was absent, for a good reason, and the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) skirted around the issue and did not answer the question.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), in winding up for the Opposition in the debate on community hospitals in Westminster Hall yesterday, pressed the matter again. The Minister of State intended, I am sure, to answer the question yesterday, but unfortunately ran out of time. I plan to give the Minister adequate time to deal with the question in this debate, and it is critical to my constituents and others in Gloucestershire that she does.
	The strategic health authority for Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire is operating under the impression that financial balance must be achieved across the year and all historic deficits must be cleared. That message is being driven down to the primary care trusts. Moreover, Gloucestershire—to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud—is losing £6 million this year, which is being taken away to bail out other areas, and we are expected to cut services to fund that. If the Minister does not confirm the position set out by the Secretary of State in her letter to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, the cuts bandwagon will continue rolling and will pick up speed.
	I now come to consultation. The health White Paper also says:
	"PCTs taking current decisions about the future of community hospitals will be required to demonstrate to their SHA that they have consulted locally and have considered options such as developing new pathways, new partnerships and new ownership possibilities. SHAs will then test PCT community hospital proposals against the principles of this White Paper."
	I have to say that many people in my constituency have a very cynical view of consultations. They believe, with some justice, that decisions are already taken, that lip service will be paid to their views and then the PCTs will plough on regardless. Just yesterday, I heard that an official from the PCT turned up at the Dilke hospital, and when asked what he was doing, said that he was there to oversee the closure. That is before the consultation process has even started.
	The Department's own guidance says that
	"there is a statutory duty for NHS bodies to consult the local overview and scrutiny committee on a substantial change...committees should also note the duty to 'consult and involve' patients and the public conferred on NHS organisations".
	The NHS has also issued guidance on service changes. It says that proposals for reconfiguration of services should involve the development of options with people, rather than for them. They should also focus on the redesign of services, and not their relocation, and take a whole-systems view that explores the contribution of all health and social care providers, working together to build sustainable solutions for the whole community. None of that has happened. The proposals for cuts came out of the blue and at short notice. They took everybody by surprise.
	The Department's guidance also states that the local NHS body must also make it clear when the consultation period will end. Full consultation should last for a minimum of 12 weeks. In their headlong rush to cut services, the PCTs are determined that consultation should last only five weeks, but I can see no justification for that. Moreover, the PCTs are also threatening us. The chief executive of the West Gloucestershire PCT told  The Citizen newspaper on23 May:
	"We have no option but to speed up our plans to change services...Every month that goes by without savings being made increases the level of savings required later in the year."
	That is blackmail, pure and simple. It is not acceptable to me or to my constituents to say that more services will be cut if we demand a proper consultation period. I hope that the Minister will spell out the Government's view of the matter, as I am sure that the PCT will take note of it. Does she agree that the people of the Forest of Dean and Gloucestershire are entitled to a consultation process of at least 12 weeks, or does she support the blackmail strategy adopted by the PCTs?
	I wanted to talk about whether the changes are "substantial"—a description used but not defined in the relevant regulations. I do not have time to go into detail, but some of the proposal headings deal with changes in service accessibility, the impact on the wider community and especially on transport, the number of patients affected and the method of service delivery. I therefore contend that the proposed changes are indeed substantial.
	In addition, I want to put it on record that if the overview and scrutiny committee considers that the proposal is not in the interests of the health service in its area, it may refer the decision to the Secretary of State. If the consultation process lasts only a meagre five weeks, I strongly urge the committee to do just that.
	The NHS guidance also says that, when the overview and scrutiny committee considers whether a proposal is in the interest of the local health service, it should also consider the extent to which patients, the public and stakeholders more widely have been involved in planning and development. Only by securing full involvement activity will an NHS body be able to take a considered view of whether its plans are in the interests of the health service for which it is responsible. I contend that so far, none of that activity has taken place.
	One other aspect is worth mentioning. The Minister will know that existing PCTs will be dissolved in September this year—a fact that does not exactly promote long-term thinking, as existing board members and senior managers will, understandably, be worried about their future. I, and a number of my hon. Friends, would prefer such decisions to be taken by the people who will be around to implement them and deal with their impact. They should not be taken by people who will be able to wash their hands of the whole thing in September and move on to something else.
	The Department has answered my parliamentary questions by confirming that the new PCT to be established in Gloucestershire from 1 October will not be bound by any decisions that have not been implemented by that date. I think that it would be better to wait, and I would be grateful if the Minister would say whether she and the Government agree.
	It is worth spending a little time on explaining why the cuts, especially to the community hospitals, have generated such anger in the Forest of Dean. Local people feel a tremendous sense of ownership of their hospitals, and for a very good reason. Both hospitals have friends organisations that have raised tremendous sums, and that money has been spent on new equipment and on financing new buildings. When the PCT threatens to close hospitals that have been built, at least in part, by the community's own efforts, there is justifiable anger.
	I do not have time to go into tremendous detail, but it is worth noting that the friends of Lydney hospital have raised about £840,000 since 1990. The money has been spent on equipment for the hospital, and in several instances has contributed to significant hospital building. When the A and E department was built the friends contributed £225,000, and when GP beds were being developed the friends contributed £280,000. The community truly views that hospital as its own, and views with anger the proposal to close it.
	Gloucestershire's share of health funding is only 88 per cent. of the national average. The demand for health care in Gloucestershire does not reflect that. The change in the formula in 1997 increased the weighting for deprivation and reduced the weighting for the age of the population. I do not expect that to be fixed now, or even that the Minister will comment, but it is useful to put down this marker for the 2007 comprehensive spending review, when it can be addressed.
	A delegation of GPs from my constituency came to see me yesterday after they had a meeting with Lord Warner at the Department of Health. They are working on a set of alternative proposals for the Forest. I understand that the proposals were of great interest to the Minister. However, if we do not slow down this headlong rush to cuts, it will be too late to implement those proposals, because some of the facilities will already have been closed.
	Yesterday, when the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leigh, replied to the debate on community hospitals, he said,
	"People want services to be available closer to where they live, and they want health and social care to become more seamless with more personalised and integrated care."
	He continued:
	"the White Paper laid out clearly our intention to move toward more local and community provision."
	It seems to me that the proposals of the primary care trust move in the opposite direction.
	The Minister also said:
	"It is incumbent upon every one of us, as leaders in our communities, to lead that debate"—
	that is, the well-informed debate called for by the NHS Confederation. I am pleased to have played my small part today in holding this one. He also said that during the summer a statement would be made about the amount of capital that the Government would make available for new community facilities. It would be criminal if that statement was made after the facilities in Gloucestershire had already been cut.
	In response to the hon. Member for Stroud, the Minister said that the Government were planning
	"an announcement on the White Paper in due course, which will apply to all kinds of services...it will cover the breadth of services. We want PCTs to look carefully at the White Paper; it is not just words, and we want them to see clearly the direction of travel and provide the kind of services that his constituents and mine want on the ground."— [Official Report, 24 May 2006;Vol. 446, c.511-513.]
	I agree with that, but if the Minister who is here today wants that vision to take shape in Gloucestershire, it is not enough to say the words; she needs to act.
	At the moment the primary care trusts are heading in the opposite direction. By the time the Government make any announcement, the cuts will have been made. I urge the Minister to intervene and send a clear instruction to the strategic health authority and the primary care trust to stop, listen and think again. If she does that, she will have my thanks and that of my hon. Friends. If not, the people of the Forest of Dean and Gloucestershire will not forgive her, or this Labour Government.

Caroline Flint: I congratulate the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) on securing this debate on health services in the Forest of Dean and Gloucestershire. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) to the debate.
	I appreciate that this issue is of great concern to the hon. Member for Forest of Dean and his constituents and I will do my best to respond. Within the framework of the national health service plan and other national guidance, responsibility for planning and developing local services lies with local health organisations. I am sure that he would agree that that is important and has been a change. It reflects the fact that there are different needs in different communities around the country. The health needs of one area may not be the same as those in another part of England. Even within a PCT area there can be considerable different challenges for different communities, which is why we place great emphasis on the issue of health inequalities. In particular, we look at health outcomes—life expectancy and the numbers of people being treated for cancer and heart disease—as one way of addressing different health needs. That is something that PCTs have to do.
	People might need to spend less time in hospital than 20 or 30 years ago, because as technology advances and medicine changes, conditions can be treated more effectively and quickly, thus enabling patients to return to the comfort of their homes and the support of their families. That has been a welcome development for many people over the last decade or so and the momentum continues, which is one of the reasons that so many more people can be seen as out-patients rather than in-patients.
	More people want services outside hospital, closer to their homes. One concern about community hospitals in many parts of the country is that they were designed for a particular model, whereby older people spent more time in hospital rather than being supported in their own home. Some of the lengths of stay in community or cottage hospitals are unacceptable. They demonstrate a lack of joined-up thinking between PCTs, social services and other organisations that support older people by giving them a better quality of experience after their hospital treatment in their recuperation and rehabilitation in an environment closer to home.

Mark Harper: The Minister makes a sensible point, although my discussions with clinicians in the two community hospitals in my constituency do not suggest that she would find the experience she describes. She referred to integration between health and social care, but none of the changes was made in consultation with social services and the county council—they came as just as much of a surprise to them. We certainly do not have that joined-up thinking in Gloucestershire.

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make that point, but I am trying to draw a bigger picture of the changes in demand for health services and their provision in the 21st century as a backdrop to some of the current discussions about how we should spend our money in the health service. Despite the challenges for community hospitals and the changes being discussed on the ground, we still see a role for them, in the right place, fit for purpose and, we hope, providing a range of services, some of which will enhance existing provision and some of which will be new, in a different environment, to meet patients' needs.

David Drew: As the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), said yesterday, the key criteria set out in the document of 16 February, "Moving care closer to home", will be used to assess the value and viability of community hospitals. We want more detail about those proposals and I agree with the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) that we should not rush them. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell us whether payment by results will be taken into account? That will be crucial in judging the viability of community hospitals, and indeed of the maternity unit in my constituency.

Caroline Flint: Payment by results is one of the reforms we introduced to ensure both that there are tariffs for care and a clearer framework in which to plan and provide services. I shall be happy to write to my hon. Friend about community hospitals and maternity care, where we are considering how we might expand the system. I am sure that he agrees about the importance of getting things right so that at each step of the way those commissioning and providing services understand what they can gain from the reform and how they can implement payment by results in the future.
	It is down to primary care trusts working with others in the local health community—strategic health authorities, local government, community groups, Members of Parliament and councillors—to discuss and decide how best to deliver local services. All areas, including the Gloucestershire health community, have seen significant improvements in services and they are all continuing to improve.
	Halfway through the 10-year NHS plan, there are tremendous improvements. Since 1997, the maximum waiting time for in-patient treatment has fallen from 18 to six months; the maximum waiting time for an out-patient appointment with a consultant has fallen from 26 to 13 weeks; and 98.8 per cent. of patients are seen, diagnosed and treated within four hours of arrival at accident and emergency departments. Some of our successes may have led to people forgetting what the situation was like 10 years ago, when waiting in accident and emergency departments lasted more than four hours and waiting for operations lasted more than six months—in some cases it took years. It is important to put that on the record. We are dealing with an adjustment in a period of improvement, not a period of regression.
	We have a performance management system and a performance assessment system that requires the NHS to deliver both clinical and financial targets, and there cannot be a trade-off between meeting those requirements and reducing deficits. I know that the Gloucestershire health community is committed to providing sustainable, high quality services for its patients, and that the proposals are about securing patient services for the future while at the same time achieving financial stability.
	That is really important for all those working in health care locally, including people who are working in organisations that are in deficit. Those deficits are not new. We have exposed deficits and made the situation much more transparent. The people who work in those organisations have to live with deficits on a year-by-year basis and the organisations that are balancing their books have to live with the year-by-year challenge of being asked to help out the organisations that are in deficit. That is traditionally how the NHS has run and managed its finances, but it is not acceptable any more. It leaves a cloud of uncertainty and insecurity hanging over everybody.
	This year will not be the first year in which changes have been happening to services or services have been delayed because of the trade-off at the end of the year and the deficits that have existed for a considerable time. We have to get things right so that we can better plan for the future and give more security to staff and patients in planning their services, and so that we do not have a year-on-year trade-off to deal with debts. That is why it is important that financial deficits are dealt with. However, alongside that there is a parallel discussion about the sorts of services that we want and need for the future.

Mark Harper: I am grateful for what the Minister has said. No one is arguing that the deficits should be allowed to run on for ever, but there is a contradiction. Under the current structure, strategic health authorities and PCTs are trying to be in balance for the whole of this year, to clear all the historic deficits in this year and to cut another £6 million across Gloucestershire to pay for the top-slicing that the strategic health authority is performing to bail out areas that are in the worse shape. If the Minister is confirming that that is the case, I should tell her that that is not what the Secretary of State said in her letter to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). She said that all that those concerned had to do was to improve the situation through 2006-07; they were not required to clear all the historic deficits. Those are two different things and they have a dramatic impact on what is happening on the ground. We need some clarity on that.

Caroline Flint: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's question. The strategic health authorities remain responsible for the performance management of their organisations and they have a duty to ensure that all trusts in their area achieve financial balance. The aim is for the NHS as a whole to return to financial balance by the end of 2006-07. A minority of NHS organisations might be unable to achieve a balance within that framework. However, all organisations that are overspending will be expected to show an improvement during this financial year and, by the end of the year, every organisation should have monthly income covering monthly expenditure. I am happy to write to him on that point if further clarification is needed and if that helps him and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud.
	The primary care trusts are investing in community services to increase the availability of care and treatment for patients in the Forest of Dean. I understand that there is a proposal to close Dilke Memorial hospital and an anticipated closure of Lydney and district hospital, too. However, in the longer term, the PCT is proposing a new community health facility to be developed on a new site in the Forest of Dean.
	The hon. Member for Forest of Dean mentioned the consultation period. Cabinet guidelines are 12 weeks, but Department of Health guidance to primary care trusts and SHAs allows some variability, because clearly some issues may not require a 12-week consultation. I understand that, in this instance, the overview and scrutiny committee agreed to a shortened consultation period, but, again, I am happy to write to him on that.

Mark Harper: The mental health trust consultation has started, but the consultation on community hospitals has not even been discussed by the overview and scrutiny committee—
	 The motion having been made at Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at half-past Six o'clock.